Francois

I talked about how people play starcraft on TV in Korea. Here is the Youtube group for all the

http://youtube.com/group/StarCraft

What's amazing is that there is a huge crowd, a huge fanbase. The players are called "programmers." Lots of Korean chickies with heavy makeup. All Koreans of course. There is one guy who is white in the uploaded videos that I saw (though maybe they only upload their favorite players.) a player named Boxer seems to be a favorite because he is creative and unpredictable.

Some starcraft trivia from wikipedia: Sometimes Actions Per Minute (or APM) is used as a quantitative indicator of one's ability to micro- and macromanage. A player's APM rating is determined by calculating the average number of actions that a player performs during each minute beyond the first 80 seconds of a game. An action in StarCraft is defined as selecting a unit or building, giving an order to a unit or building, or designating a target for an order (for example, ordering a marine to attack, and then selecting a supply depot would be three separate actions, while selecting a marine and right-clicking on a supply depot would be two actions).

Part of me wants to do a paper on labour/society in MMO games. I want to understand how people in different MMO's/Virtual worlds/Physical Life see their labour differently. How does the structure of game or workplace, (And different kinds of games or workplaces) affect how people view (and practice) their labour. However I think that might be too simple.

It might be more interesting to examine what sort of social relations different virtual worlds set up. I'm fascinated by how WOW wants to keep out the real world economy and have it's own closed protectionist economy where everyone has a "fun" job, a job that they do because they like playing the game.

I think this sort of social examination would be more interesting than the big keyboard. I was thinking about the second life residency, and honestly I don't know what I'd do with it, but if I had a better idea about how society in Second Life functions, and how I think it should function then I might know what to do with the residency. If second life is a world it needs a government. What kind of government? What kind of strategy would lead to the formation of a government that could negotiate with Linden Labs.

http://secondslog.blogspot.com/2005/11/lets-have-party.html

http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/

http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=942

http://slla.blogspot.com/

work vs fun in MMORPGS

http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/pdf/Yee_labor_of_fun.pdf

By the way this seems like a pretty good site for MMO research.

http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/arch_cat.php

Rockstar games likes to court controversy (there is no bad publicity.) Their most recent game was Grand Theft Auto. A game where you run and drive around a city jacking cars, shooting people, picking up prostitutes. There is a bigger narrative, or you can do side missions if you jack a specific car.

Here is a shot from the original GTA, which had a God perspective (top down map.) It was a bit of a cult hit, but the city itself was not very detailed and the gameplay a little repetitive.

There was a second GTA, but it didn't change the gameplay too much, the third GTA set in Liberty City (based on New York.) Expansions include Vice City (based on Miami) and San Andreas (3 cities in California.) The sex scene "Hot Coffee Mod" made a big stir in the media. (I believe we talked about that in class.)

Here is Liberty City

I know you guys have probably all heard about this, but boys are kissing boys in Rockstar's new game "Bully"

Bullworth Academy

In their latest game you play a kid in a school who runs around doing what kids do in school. You can choose to go to class, stay up late (this has consequences), and you have to navigate the cliques (greasers, jocks, nerds), and as the title suggest: fight. Eventually you go out of the school and interact with the townies.

One thing not advertised in the press releases is that your character can get some girl lovin (kissing only), but also some boy lovin. Here is one VIDEO and another SITE

As many of the media reports I read have stated, this isn't an essential part of gameplay, and the fact that Rockstar Games put this in as an option is a progressive move. Of course the publicity that it has generated has probably kept the game in people's minds (leading to more sales) and gay gamers may be more likely to buy. Fundamentalist Christian parents however may be less inclined to buy. If this trend continues and the homosexual option becomes the norm (The sims has this option as well,) then any game that doesn't have such options will have to justify itself. I hope that this trend continues and games stay on the right side of the culture wars. (Or at least the side that I am on.)

Download file

It was interesting to show Second Life to the class. People generally didn't seem very impressed. So I am trying to justify my enthusiasm.

As I said in my previous post Second Lifes strength and weakness is the freedom that it gives it's citizens to create their own world.

One of my main criticisms of World of Warcraft is that it is rather static, whereas Second Life is dynamic. This is because like Youtube or Counterstrike mods the game content is designed by "players" instead of by Linden Labs' design teams.

When I fly and walk around Second Life the environment seems rich to me because I know that all of it was created by different people, there is a presence there rather than the mythic dramatic facade given by World of Warcraft.

Another massive multiplayer online game with more of a dynamic world is Shadowbane, where players have the chance to form guilds, build cities, fight each other for control of mines and cities in an MMORPG model.

But back to Second Life.

The problem with this democratic creation by users is that in Second Life the creation is wide, but pretty shallow and disconnected/purposeless in comparison to a centrally designed world.

Second Life is a dystopia of sorts. The problem with letting users make their own world is that they may make a very boring place. It seems that much of the world is filled with sex (cybersex), fashion and gambling, and soon corporations from the physical world will jump on the bandwagon. I visited some amazing spots, a beach with waves that rolled in. (But is it better than a real beach. Maybe it is easier to reach, but ultimately less beautiful.)

The Artist run spaces that I went to show promise... nothing brilliant, but interesting for sure. There was an interesting video of a conversation at "The port" about communities and autonomy. I watched the video of the autonomy discussion in Second Life, but instead of reading the text Second life I went to the website they gave.

Why is Second Life better than the web as it stands now? Or why is talking politics in a virtual bar better than talking politics in a physical bar?

It seems that much of Second Life is devoted to public forums, sort of like virtual chatrooms. Is having a visual avatar better than just having a pure text chatroom? Maybe for cybersex it is. Chatrooms don't have fashion, but chatters always have their instant message icons, and their profiles. Music and pictures and profile are "fashion" of sorts on Myspace and other social networking sites.

I think being able to try on clothes in virtual would be a very powerful tool, only I would need to make my physical body correspond accurately with that of the avatar. There may be other things that can be done in this virtual space that only become apparent after Second Life has been around for a while.

Some types of teaching would be better within a visual virtual world (as opposed to a textual virtual world.) One can show videos and pictures, and maybe also create virtual objects to illustrate concepts. Second Life could have possibilities as a virtual campus. (But again, photos and video are availabe on the web.)

It'll be hard to beat hypertext.

When I approach Second Life I try to measure it against Physical Space, MMORPGs and to internet chatrooms. This shows one thing about Second Life. Second Life takes on aspects of each of these "spaces." It is a wide platform. As such it doesn't have much depth in any of these areas, but:

1. Second Life has the potential (albeit limited by the tools Linden Labs gives them) for users to create more depth in any of these areas.

2. Second life also has the potential to link some of these areas together. Though to a certain extent MMORPGs share things with internet chatrooms.

But it could all be under a single program/world. If I was tired of games I can go chat, if I am tired of chatting, flashmob the reebok store.

but Second Life isn't there yet. (And all the academics/journalists in the world won't make it that way.)

There are two different Ideas of work proposed by World of Warcraft and Second life.

Money is supposed to be tied to experience in World of Warcraft. (Though there is the exception of the Chinese Goldfarmers.) The designers want everyone to have to go through the same life experience to gain experience and power. In this sense the rules of the game are "dramatic" not economic.

In second life one can hire others to do one's work, whereas a character/actor in a play could never hire out his acting.

Identity in WOW is fixed, like in a Feudal or Caste Society. If you are an Elf you are an Elf, If you are a fighter you are a fighter, a priest is a priest. Of course this identity is non-heirarchical (IE no-one is an untouchable like in the Indian Caste Society.)

In Second life one can change one's physical appearance easily. Only one's name is fixed.

One of the strengths (and weaknesses) of Second Life is the freedom it gives players. This creative democracy means that everyone's life is what they wish to make of it. It's rather existential in a way. Whereas in World of Warcraft one is fated to be an Elf Warrior.

But of course if one is not fixed in a definite identity then one cannot be a person in second life at any other time than one is now.

In World of Warcraft "Being" is eternal like the Pharoahs. The pharoah is the same "being" because his life is the same as his father, in a sense he is his father, he is THE PHAROAH, eternal and outside of time.

The Elf Warrior is the Elf warrior, it is a timeless mythic cycle. The Elf Warrior approaches Draknor the Dragon, and kills him. 24 hours later the computer sets up the same "set" for the same "stage" the same fake trees the same gold by the dragon and another adventurer "acts" out the same script.

Whereas Second life is less mythological. One can never be in a time other than the one that one is in. If you missed the property boom too bad, Linden Labs will never make the computer re-create the same property boom for you.

It's like the difference between Joseph Campbell and Marx.

I thought his analysis of the lack of narrativity in games was interesting. He seems to want to develop a dramatic AI. A program for making a theatre inside a computer, but a theatre that is not linear. Traditional theatre goes from beginning to ending, it is completely linear

This guy wants a "narrative" that plays out like a bunch of atoms/bugs bouncing on each other. Would that mean that in the end even with all the different actors bouncing the result would be the same? Or would there be several possible results. What he really is talking about is a non-deterministic narrative. A narrative system.

For instance this linear structure helps plays be dramatic. Part of the experience of watching a tragedy is that we know that the hero will die, the immutability of destiny makes the tragedy all the more tragic.

There is another tension if we do not know the outcome. One wishes to see the end of a game or a book because one wishes to discover the outcome. One is not an omnipotent watcher surveying the past, but a person in real time, every moment is new. Yet unlike some portions of real life we are moving towards something: IE the end of the book.

In this program even the creator would not know the outcome(s) until the program was run.

But if one set up the program so that 99.9% of the time there was a Shakespearean pile of bodies on the stage at the end, then you might have something approaching the deterministic drama of a play.

Of course this is completely antithetical to his aims.

Also, what do the characters do after the pile of bodies? That would be an interesting piece, to set up a "hamlet" program and see what the survivors talked about afterwards.

A good general overview of where American International Relations/Middle East politics meets with Computer games.

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1&cId=3153332

One intersting game on this site is Afkar media's UnderAsh

UnderAsh and it's sequel are about the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. (With an "anti-zionist" bent) as can be expected from a Syrian Publishing company

These Images are of UnderSiege

Underash's creator, Afkar media (Damascus) is a private company with this mission statement: "To communicate with Mankind all over the world and let them breathe the peaceful truth and tolerance of our civilization, as a way to face up [to] the negative stereotypes that have been pursuing us throughout the past decades" and "to communicate with Moslems in a way that respects their colorful heritage and spiritual privacy as a way to get them out of the shell they were put in and enrich the civilization of the 21st century with a touch of justice, acceptance, and love."

here is another site comparing America's army with UnderAsh

http://www-ugs.csusb.edu/honors/02/ResTravis.htm

A quote from the UGS site about UnderAsh: When your character dies the point is driven home in a harsh manner with the brief appearance of a message stating, "You Got Shot ..Now they will recognize your ID They will torture your family and destroy your house Try Again"

This is a quote from the BBC site on the game http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2019677.stm

"In later stages, the young Ahmad acquires light weapons, shoots Israeli settlers and lowers an Israeli flag. He rescues wounded Palestinians shot by the Zionists, as Israelis are called in the game, and eventually he joins the fighting against the Israelis occupying South Lebanon. But suicide bombings are out. The game is surprisingly real. If Ahmad gets shot, he dies. There is no miracle cure. If he shoots civilians, the game is also over. A lot of young players have complained that the game is too difficult. There is also no ultimate victory against the Israelis. "Under Ash is about history. So in our modern history there is no solution for the conflicts and the game is some kind of a mirror," Mr Qasmiyya explains. "There is no solution for Ahmad's case. At the last level of the game, there will be no major victory or reclaiming lands.""

It's interesting that even in a game there is no victory for Palestinians, not even a fantasy one. Also the BBC website points out that Arab support for the Palestinians remains largely virtual, rather than real.

In this sense the game is more "real/historical" and a tool for showing what it is like to be a young Palestinian, (IE frustrating, with victory not really a possiblity.) One gets the sense that America's army is a recruiting tool, but This game is more trying to integrate people into a history, (even if that history is propagandized.)

The game creator says that in UnderSiege there are no heroes, 3 out of 5 of the characters die, and that the game is hard, (after all what real-world chance do the Palestinian militants have agains Israeli soldiers.)

I think I understand the basic interface, some things like fear and enthusiasm (and how time phases work.) One thing that is confusing to me is the part where you set your priorities. Is that just a cosmetic thing or does it affect gameplay?

It's all rather abstract until I actually get into the game, at which point I'll probably have to recheck the manual.

I checked the forums for strategy tips, it's a very new game huh? There are less than 50 posts on the forums.

Since I am a sculptor I am very interested in the interface between the physical and the virtual.

I think that this interface is often overlooked, but recently there has been a refocus in this area. For instance Nintendo can't compete in processor speed with Sony or Microsoft so instead it competes in interface design (Wii.) A smart move because it's quite a bit cheaper, and changes gameplay just as much.

Here is another interesting interface invention from Edward Tse.

It's hard to understand in photograph form because the commands are auditory. Here is the video of him using the tabletop for Google Earth and Warcraft 3

I find different interfaces fascinating: For computers: A keyboard, a mouse, a joystick,

For consoles there were various video game controllers with various combinations of buttons and sticks.

Some more outlandish ones that I have seen are the NES Zapper:

a plastic pad that you stomp on (for dance Dance Dance Revolution)

Also interesting are vibrating controllers (which vibrate when you get hit.) I remember watching a friend playing Metal Gear Solid (1998) for Playstation. There is a point in the game where the game script "breaks the fourth wall." IE the game is self referential, aware that it is a game. One character tells you to "put down your controller" and then proceeds to vibrate the controller with his "telikinetic powers." There are several other instances of breaking the fourth wall in Metal Gear Solid detailed on Wikipedia:

But back to interface:

When I was a kid playing video games at my friend Tom's house my friend's dad would always ask why we weren't out getting any excercise. I (being a smart alec) said that we were excercising our finger muscles (from pressing the buttons on console controller.)

I like involving the whole body in the experience of games, but it doesn't have to be in a strictly virtual reality way.

I want to change the interface. One way to do this for me is to use a classic sculptural idea of scale and apply it to an interface. The Querty keyboard was designed for typewriters and has survived to this day, I think it would be interesting to scale up this artefact from the days of typewriters and make it into a full body experience.

If the keyboard was big enough, it might even become a team experience, with different people controlling different parts of the keyboard. For instance in playing a Real time game (either FPS or RTS or even MMORPG) one would need to coordinate a team of people over a whole keyboard.

Another idea that I had (which I think owes some to Edward Tse) for a full body interface would be to remap the map of a RTS game (or that of google earth) onto a floor on which you roll around on your stomach. You basically use your whole body as the mouse pointer or directional keys. (I'm not sure which yet.)