Interesting discussion yesterday at the game studio around the holding of the wiimote. Surely one the topic that emerged from the usability tests of wii games we conducted, especially with people who’ve NEVER touch a video game console. The first picture represents the regular wiimote holding scheme whereas the two other shows how a novice user held it when playing different mini-games.

Some of the issues the tests raised: How do we design applications for the B button in the previous cases? What about the 1 and 2? Can we use them in the interaction? Should the A-button be important so that the thumb or the second finger? Is the “plus” button the right one to break scenes? What about the cross? What’s the role of the direction cross with these two ways of holding the wiimote?

[Last year, I wrote a paper for a workshop at a human-computer interaction conference about the user experience of video games, actually it briefly presents the work I am doing with game companies. The paper was not accepted and I thought it would be pertinent to leave it online anyway]

Introduction
Video game companies have now integrated the need to deploy user-centered design and evaluation methods to enhance players experiences. This has led them to hire cognitive psychology researchers, human-computer interface specialists, develop in-house usability labs or subcontract tests and research to companies or academic labs. Although, very often, methods has been directly translated form classic HCI and usability, this game experience analysis started to gain weights through publications. This situation acknowledges the importance of setting a proper method for user-centered game design, as opposed to the one applied for “productivity applications” or web services. The Microsoft Game User Research Group for example has been very productive on that line of research (see for example [5]) with detailed methods such as usability tests, Rapid Iterative Test and Evaluation [4] or consumer playtests [1]. Usability test is definitely the most common method currently given its relevance to identify interfaces flaws as well as factors that lower the fun to play through behavioral analysis.

That said, most of the methods deployed by the industry seem to rely heavily on quantitative and experimental paradigms inherited from the cognitive sciences tradition in human-computer interaction (see [2]). Studies are often conducted in corporate laboratory settings in which myriads of players come visit and spend hours playing new products. Survey, ratings, logfile analysis, brief interviews (and sometimes experimental studies) are employed to apprehend users’ experiences and implications for game or level designers are fed back into game development processes.

While these approaches proves to be fruitful (as reported by the aforementioned papers which describe some case studies), this situation only accounts for a limited portion of what HCI and user-centered design could bring to table in terms of game user research. Too often, the “almost-clinical” laboratory usability test is deployed without any further thoughts regarding how players might experience the product “in the wild”. For example, this kind of studies does not take into account how the activity of gaming is organized, and how the physical and social context can be important to support playful activities.

What we propose is to step back for a while and consider a complementary approach to gain a more holistic view of how a game product is experienced. To do so, we will describe two examples from our research carried out in partnership with a game studio.

Examples from field studies

Our first example depicted on Figure 1 shows the console of an informant: a Nintendo DS with a post-it that says “Flea market on Saturday” and an exclamation mark. The player of “Animal Crossing” indeed left this as a reminder that two days ahead, there would be a flea market in the digital environment. This is important in the context of that game because it will allow him to sell digital items to non-playable characters in the game.

This post-it is only an example among numerous uses of external resources to complement or help the gameplay. Player-created maps of digital environments xeroxed and exchanged in schools in the nineties is another example of such behavior. Magazines, books and digital environment maps are also prominent examples of that phenomenon, which eventually leads to business opportunities. Some video game editors indeed start publishing material (books, maps, cards) and try to connect it to the game design (by allowing secret game challenges through elements disseminated in comics for example).

Figure 2 shows another example that highlights the social character of play. This group of Japanese kids is participating the game experience, although there is only one child holding a portable console. The picture represented here is only one example of collective play along many that we encountered, both in mobile of fixed settings. They indicate that playing a video-game is much more than holding an input controller since participants (rather than “The Player”) have different roles ranging from giving advices, scanning the digital environment to find cues, discussing previous encounters with NPCs or controlling the game character.

Another intriguing results from a study about Animal Crossing on the Nintendo DS has revealed that some players share the game and the portable console with others. An adult described how he played with his kid asynchronously: he hides messages and objects in certain places and his son locates them, displace them and eventually hide others. The result of this is the creation of a circular form of game-play that emerged from the players’ shared practice of a single console.

Conclusion

Although this looks very basic and obvious, these three examples correspond to two ways to frame cognition and problem solving: “Distributed Cognition” [3] and “Situated Action” [6]. While the former stresses that cognition is distributed the objects, individuals, and tools in our environment, Situated Action emphasizes the interrelationship between problem solving and its context of performance, mostly social. The important lesson here is that problem solving, such as interacting with a video-game is not confined to the individual but is both influenced and permitted by external factors such as other partners (playing or not as we have seen) or artifacts such as paper, pens, post-its, guidebooks, etc. Whereas usability testing relates to more individual model of cognition, Situated Action or Distributed Cognition imply that exploring and describing the context of play is of crux importance to fully grasp the user experience of games. Employing ethnographic methodologies, as proposed by these two Cognitive Sciences frameworks, can fulfill such goal by focusing on a qualitative examination of human behavior. It is however important to highlight the fact that investigating how, where and with whom people play is not meant to replace more conventional test. Rather, one can see this as a complement to understand phenomenon such as the discontinuity of gaming or the use of external resources while playing.

One of the reasons why this approach can be valuable is that results drawn from ethnographic research of gaming can be relevant to find unarticulated opportunities. For example, by explicitly requiring the use of external resource or the possibility to have challenges designed for multiple players as shown in the Animal Crossing example we described.

In the end, what this article stressed is that playing video-games is a broad experience which can be influenced by lots of factors that could be documented. And this material is worthwhile to design a more holistic vision of a product.

References

[1] Davis, J., Steury, K., & Pagulayan, R. A survey method for assessing perceptions of a game: The consumer playtest in game design. Game Studies: the International Journal of Computer Game Research, 5(1) (2005).
[2] Fulton, B. (2002). Beyond Psychological Theory: Getting Data that Improve Games. Game Developer’s Conference 2002 Proceedings, San Jose CA, March 2002. Available at: http://www.gamasutra.com/gdc2002/features/fulton/fulton_01.htm
[3] Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild, MIT Press.
[4] Medlock, M. C., Wixon, D., Terrano, M., Romero, R., Fulton, B. (2002). Using the RITE Method to improve products: a definition and a case study. Usability Professionals Association, Orlando FL July (2002). Available at: http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/c/c/5cc406a0-0f87-4b94-bf80-dbc707db4fe1/mgsut_MWTRF02.doc.doc
[5] Pagulayan, R. J., Keeker, K., Wixon, D., Romero, R., & Fuller, T. User-centered design in games. In J. Jacko and A. Sears (Eds.), Handbook for Human-Computer Interaction in Interactive Systems, pp.883-906. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (2002).
[6] Suchman, L.A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.

[Now it’s also interesting to add a short note about WHY the paper has not been accepted The first reviewer was unhappy by the fact that many ethnographies of game-playing have been published. Although this is entirely true in academia, it’s definitely not the case in the industry (where ethnography is seldom employed in playtests). And my mistake may have been that I frame the paper in an game industry perspective, using the literature about gaming usability. The second reviewer wanted a more extensive description of a field study and less a scratch-the-surface approach that I adopted. My problem of course is that it’s always difficult to describe results more deeply because most of the data are confidential… This is why I stayed at a general level]

An interesting talk I attended yesterday at the Lyon Game Developers’ Conference was the on entitled “Creating Great Games for the Nintendo Wii and Its Unique Controller” by Philip and Andrew Oliver from Blitz Games:

“Even though the ideas are fairly simple to prototype, getting the feel of each control system just right was a challenge in itself. Detecting the correct motion of the controller had to be very specific and tested thoroughly as different people held the controllers in sometimes very different ways. The problem of how to convey the instructions for the controller types within the game had to be addressed. As we all know, nobody reads the manual, especially at the target age range. A series of images, text prompts and even animated movies were experimented with, all with different results. Testing and interpreting these methods were key to getting a successful title.“

Some of the results they described about designing wii movements:

“- swiping is tiring and it’s difficult to sync movements on the screen
- driving using the wiimote as a steering wheel that you can push/pull to accelerate/brake did not work because it was too tiring and small movements were unnoticed… and they noticed how an abstract notion like accelerating is better conveyed by pressing buttons
- people hold the wiimote VERY differently. Kids tend to hold it very loosely and do movements with large amplitudes whereas adults hold it more firmly and do not swing it away too much (as if it was a sacred grail or a TV remote control)
- certain controls that require player to hold the wiimote vertically did not work… because people do not hold it vertically: people do not look at the wiimote especially when standing. Asking someone to hold the wiimote vertically is difficult because it depends on situations: sit at a desk, lie on a bed, standing, standing with friends.
- distance between the wiimote and the screen was easily detected and that variable was very accurate to be employed in a game mechanic.“

Why do I blog this? these few elements are interesting and echoes with the (private) work I have done about this. More specially it resonates quite well with the importance of context in playing with the Wii. I am currently thinking about a study concerning how people have expectations about the wiimote, how they understand its usage. It would also be interesting to observe how people naturally hold the wiimote

Gave a talk at the European GDC today in Lyon. It was called “5 lessons about tangible user interfaces” and addressed an overview of classic misconceptions concerning tangible user interfaces. It’s actually a modified version of an earlier talk I gave last year at Nokia Design in Los Angeles; I added few things I’ve done since then. It’s always interesting to give such a talk to different audiences; the way it it is received by industrial designers is totally different by game developers, fully different insights and discussions. The slides are here (.pdf, 9.8Mb):

Tangible interfaces hold lots of promises ranging from being more intuitive or realistic, being more appealing to users to enabling people to get some physical exercises in the process. User experience research about it shows that things are not so simple. This presentation discusses 5 misconceptions and why they are wrong. Each can be exemplified by arguments drawn from user studies, which are of importance for game designers:
1. Inert objects do not lead to tangible interactions or how non-gestural interfaces such as TV remote control can be gestural
2. Direct mapping between the physical movement and the interaction in the digital world is simple and intuitive or how direct mapping is not always efficient for players or accurately detected.
3. physical interfaces offer a larger variety of control than standard controllers, and are more realistic and intuitive”: depending on the task, tangible interfaces actually do not necessarily lead to intuitiveness and ease of control.
4. The starting point of designing TUI is to look at real-life counterparts… so let’s design guns for shooting games, a flute for musical games…: there are actually other alternative that are almost never investigated, taking the opposite direction of direct mapping.
5. Tangible interfaces are ubiquitous and allows mobile/seamless interactions or how tangible interactions do not appear in a vacuum and lots of problems due to the context can happen.

The description of why these ideas are misconceptions lead to important implications and design lessons about how to go beyond current implementations in video games.

The conference was interesting, sometimes a bit too techno-centric for me, I will try to write something about my notes from the sessions I found relevant.

Preparing my talk for the Game Design Conference about tangible/gestural interfaces, I ran across this very interesting Wario Ware Walkthrough guide by G. Louie (not only curious because of its ASCII layout).

What struck me as very pertinent here is the nomenclature (the naming) and the description of moves. See for example this intriguing list:

“The Form Baton - The Balance Stone - The Remote Control - The Umbrella - The Handlebar - The Sketch Artist - The Chauffeur - The Samurai- The Tug-of-War -The Waiter - The Elephant - The Thumb Wrestler - The Discard -The Big Cheese - The Janitor - The Dumbbell - The Mohawk - The Finger Food - The Boxer -The Mortar and Pestle - The Diner“

With descriptions such as:

“ The Handlebar
“Turn the Form Baton sideways and grasp the ends firmly in both hands. Like riding a bicyle, perfecting this stance requires grace, steadiness, and tightshorts.”

To do The Handlebar, turn the Wii Remote so that the 2 button is on the right. Place hands over the top so that palms are on the buttons. Uses for this form would be pumping and balancing.
*Does not use remote sensor bar*“

Why do I blog this? what I find relevant here is the way people try to refer to gestures meant to control specific game interactions. Things get more complicated when the interface is gestural: how to name them? how to describe them not only to the users but in game guide? A solution as we se here is to rely on existing metaphors: type of activities (boxer), postures or animal that makes think of posture (elephant), moments (diner) or jobs (chauffeur).

Reading the notes taken from Raph Koster’s thoughts at MIT’s Futures of Entertainment 2: Mobile Media, I ran across this:

“what’s kind of fascinating is seeing the wrestling with what the platform [mobile phone] actually is. (..) Broadcast? Input device? Truly interactive? Synchronous or asynchronous? (…) TV could have been far more interactive from an early stage, but it drifted into broadcast. The Internet could have been more about broadcast, but instead its DNA pushed it in a different direction. The reasons aren’t solely technological, I don’t think; some of it is network effects, some of it is about what businesses succeed early on.
(…)
Which makes me think that probably as we think of things like immersive gaming in the real world, ARGs, massively multiplayer geotagged environments, and virtual worlds on the phone, there may be a dedicated device that does it better. Most of these other examples have been of migrating capabilities to the devices. But the interesting stuff that will be the true core use of the devices will be the things that arise from the device — and it will be at its best when the other stuff isn’t there to serve as a distraction, in the way that the best GPSes don’t try to also be TVs but instead try to enhance the experience of geolocation.“

Why do I blog this? in a sense, he summarized one of the main mobile application/location-based services question: “what is the platform”.

A very comprehensive article by Ernest Adams in BW about the “50 Greatest Game Innovations”. The underlying argument there is how video games are a hotbed for innovation (in other domains than the gaming field). I won’t enter into much details about every single design advances presented there, stating only that they cover the following:

“GAMEPLAY INNOVATIONS: By gameplay I mean the challenges that the game poses to the player, and the actions that the player may take to meet the challenges. The vast majority of these actions are obvious: jumping, steering, fighting, building, trading and so on. But some challenges and actions distinctly advanced the state of the art, and provided new ways for us to play.

INPUT INNOVATIONS: Interactivity is the essence of gaming, and in a videogame, some device has to translate the player’s intentions into action. We’ve always had buttons, knobs (aka spinners or paddles), joysticks, sliders, triggers, steering wheels and pedals. But recently our options for input devices have exploded, and a good designer gives careful thought to them before choosing an approach to use.

PRESENTATIONAL INNOVATIONS: Innovations in what the player sees and hears may depend heavily on technological advances, but I still consider them design innovations as well, features the designer can choose to use in their game—or not. I take static and scrolling 2D screens for granted; they already existed in mechanical coin-ops.

GENRES: We borrowed many videogame genres from other game forms, but a few genres would not have been possible before the invention of the computer, and represent real design innovation.

PLAY STYLES: Different ways that people play, and how designers facilitate them.“

Why do I blog this? A must read even though it’s only a selection among other possibilities

This transcript of an interview of Dan Saffer about his manifesto for gestural patterns for touch interaction is very pertinent. It’s mostly about this wiki resource which aims at collecting and disseminating gestural interface information and patterns, such as found on such devices as the iPhone and Wii (following a discussion Adaptive Path’s blog).

Some excerpts of this interview:

“How do you document this gesture where I’m sweeping my hand across the screen?” (…) This is our generation’s drag and drop.”
(…)
I felt it was a really important thing for interaction designers to be doing because, otherwise, we’re going to start to end up with a thousand different ways of turning on my TV where it’s like, “Is this the Microsoft TV where I have to snap my fingers three times or is it the Apple one where I twirl around in a circle?”
(…)
one of the nice things about having it be in a completely digital medium is that one of the problems with gestures is certainly documenting them. How do you describe something that’s not very ambiguous? It’s awfully difficult with words to describe gestures or even in diagrams to describe gestures.So having the ability to eventually put up movie clips showing this as a pattern with people moving their forefinger and thumb apart, for instance, having that kind of rich experience would be really nice on the website.“

(Picture taken from a wii game usability test I ran few months ago)

The examples he gives revolves around the Wii or the iPhone:

“The Wii certainly is very much about sort of movement in space. You’re not really touching anything except the controller. You’re kind of indirectly using a gesture. With the touch screen on the iPhone and other things, your fingertip is actually touching the device that you’re manipulating. So there is this gradation there.“

Why do I blog this? this is indeed an interesting issue, how you describe these movements? can we have a grammar (i.e. a set of patterns). This has some tight connections with a project I am involved in that tries to map the wiimote and nunchuk movements of existing games in a database, this will then allow to analyze them and document their relative importance.

(Cross-posted at Terra Nova)

There is an insightful interview of Sulka Haro, the lead designer of Habbo Hotel by Brandon Sheffield on Gamasutra. The interview covers a broad range of issues and may be of interest for who-ever is intrigued by “gameless games” or the “social web” or the evolution of the game industry as a whole. It’s not all about MMOs but it shows how the topic overlaps with other themes such as social software, multiple on-line identity or scrum development etc.

It starts from the recurring question (at least for people in the game industry”) about Habbo is not a game “as games straight out, we probably should be expanding what our definition of game“. Haro answered by highlighting the importance of “play” as opposed to “game” in terms of the important metaphor. The discussion goes on and on about this and it reminds me of some people from the video game industry who still overlook Habbo at “some part of the industry”. The main reason they give comes both from the technology employed and the game mechanics.

(A screen capture of Habbo Hotel as shown on the Gamasutra website)

What is more interesting is the following:

“BS: It seems like you’ve added more of what we traditionally consider video game-like game elements to Habbo over time. What was the reasoning behind it?SH: I guess the initial couple of games we did were very small. (…) So these would be like the super minigames, which are really popping out more and more nowadays, but then we’ve been expanding into doing more complicated stuff, where the user is actually playing what you would identify as a game, like the snowboard game, and you have proper games, like throwing snowballs. I guess, partially, it’s good business. There are people who actually want to play, and they pay money for it. But also, at least in my view, if you’re looking at, like, a 13-year old guy, who is used to playing games, it’s easy to communicate that, “Hey, there’s this game-game here as well, and if you start off on playing that, maybe you’ll get used to talking to the other users and get excited to meet people and eventually do the other activities as well.” It broadens the scope a bit as well. The action in Habbo is really in the rooms themselves, so…
(…)
BS: I was wondering how it was that you came up with the idea to let users play around with stuff. It hadn’t really been done too much on a scale where it was easily accessible like that.

SH: As I said in the keynote, the people who founded Sulake — the first core group of people — they all had multimedia-slash-web backgrounds, and [were] not the games people. So we didn’t even have this notion of stuff not being done before. It’s kind of like really looking at all the websites that were already back then doing a lot of content — obviously not to the extent where it is now, but really just looking at the past experiences and knowing that people want to do it.“

Some elements about the users are also worth to note:

“The market penetration in some of the markets is incredible… I don’t know exactly, but almost every single teen in the whole country who is in that age group has actually been there. It’s kind of funny — if you go and look at like eighteen-year-olds, or people who are already past the teenage age, they still have this thing in common, that they actually have been to this service and have played out. It’s kind of funny, sometimes, to talk to people who are way beyond it already, but still remember the funky stuff that they did. (…) , the fact that we have the teenagers in there is a big turnoff for the older people.“

There are also interesting issues regarding the importance of localization (” The UI is always local. Especially with teenagers“), no plan to go on the console market (” the fundamental thing is really like text-based roleplaying, and with consoles, people don’t have keyboards. “) or UI issues.

Overall, it’s interesting to notice how this project came out form the blue and is now taking more and more respect in the game industry (although there is still doubt and skepticism). From the academic perspective, it’s a bit similar, I haven’t really found any research regarding Habbo and it’s often studied as part of the Web2.0/user-generated/social software artifacts. Anyhow, we can possibly think about Habbo Hotel as a boundary object, something interpreted differently by different communities. One can see it as a boundary objects both for the industries (web vs games) and the demographics (teenagers vs grownups). And as every boundary objects, it’s something worth to explore.

Closely related to my earlier post about the evolution of space in multi-user environments, Richard Bartle commented about a paper he wrote on that topic.

The author’s starting point is that there is less discussion about virtual worlds ARE than WHY people play them, and he claims that VW are places. He basically describes the evolution from text-based MUDs, to 2 1/2D (with isometric or first-person viewpoints) and 3D MMORPGs.

His paper revolves around the display format of virtual worlds, a characteristic Jake Song did not address in his speech at LIFT Seoul:

“Given, then, that virtual worlds should endeavour to approximate reality for their everyday workings, how can this be implemented? The real is at a distinct advantage over the virtual in that it works entirely in parallel. It can ray-trace every photon in the universe simultaneously, whereas even the best of today’s home computers have a hard time rendering a few shadows in real time. Virtual worlds therefore have to cut corners. As it happens, they have developed three ways to do this, which correspond to the three main display formats:
(…)
Contiguous Locations: Textual worlds represent space as a set of interlinked nodes. Each node represents an atomic location (commonly called a room), which generally conceptualises the smallest meaningful space into which a player’s character can fit. (…) A map for a textual world therefore consists of a network of rooms connected by a set of arrows that correspond to movement commands (…) the arrows on the map need not be bi-directional (…) nodes need not represent rooms of the same size (…) A location can link to itself
(…)
Tessellated Locations:r ender the world graphically as an array of tiles. The major advantages over a network of nodes in this respect are the constant scale and the implicit connection between the squares. (…) Using an isometric approach, height could now be shown; this meant that hills and mountains no longer had to be suggested by a change in a square’s background texture (…) introduce a degree of nodality back into the system. (…) Access was gained through particular wsquares flagged as being coincident. As an example, if on the main map you walked onto a square containing a staircase leading upwards, that would teleport you to a submap for the floor “above” where you were;
(…)
Continuous Locations: a location is instead a mere point in a 3D co-ordinate system (…) In a true 3D world, the representation finally goes from contiguous to continuous. Strictly speaking, however, because computers store information using discrete bits, even their “real numbers” are not actually continuous; nevertheless, the level of granularity is so fine that to players it feels continuous.“

Why do I blog this? material for a paper about cross-media studies of location-awareness interface in a MUD, 3D space and pervasive gaming. The elements discussed by Bartle are interesting wrt the literature review about the evolution of space.

Bartle, R. (2007). Making Places. In Borries, Friedrich, Walz, Steffen P., Brinkmann, Ulrich, and Matthias Bottger (eds.), Space Time Play. Games, Architecture, and Urbanism. BirkhÔø?user: Basel / Berlin / Boston.

Last bit from Pic Nic: my notes form Ben Cerveny’s talk: “Gaming the System”

Ben started his talk by claiming his main hypothesis: game can be thought as a way into thinking how to approach not only entertainment but also computer-human interactions as a whole. Acknowledging the breakdown of the “operating system”: to him, “architecture” and underlying principles as a mean to organize context in culture has failed. What is interesting to him is what happen in the margin, not in the over-organized areas: this is where ‘play’ happens.

So what would be a space of play? According to Ben it’s a space of fragments and flows in which objects are interconnected, a dynamic environment that is evolving constantly (”we’re leaving behind linear constructs“). Another characteristic is the profusion of dimensions (”an aura of multidimensionality that surrounds everything”). Game design can be then seen as a description and tuning of the variables: the building of models to handle the domain of play (”depeche models”). Data visualization is a possible way to model phenomena (”maps for these territories“).

And games are meant to explore models. In the process of playing a game, people are not afraid to learn (as opposed to use applications). The mindset of play invokes the optimal experience: play invokes flow and brings you into the flow. Game design defines a vocabulary of moves that are internalized by players and this type of “literacy” is going to allow people to utilize complex applications. Video-game players have internalized how simulation works, as a new scientific approach. They can reclaim this knowledge to other fields: players are able to find patterns for example.

Games are instances of play, a way to understand the boundaries and to learn, they can be seen as a vehicle for understanding. Ben concluded that much of our future lies in literacy about dynamic systems such as the one designed in games: “play is about fluidity, work is about crystallization“, “play as the negative space of work that allows work to continue“.

To a person in the audience who asked whether this meant the end of traditional knowledge, Ben answered that “it doesn’t mean that books are over, it’s just that we build a more complex construct that takes into account games in the production of culture“.

Why do I blog this? I like the “meta” aspect of Ben’s talk. In this case, I found very interesting how he wrapped up all these aspects that makes a lot of sense considering past background in the field. This is the sort of elements I discussed for years with some game designers.

At a less meta level, the implication I see in this is not to think of games are a way to convey and directly put content in players’ brain but rather that the cognitive processes mobilized when playing games can create relevant routines that may possibly be transfered to other activities.

(cross-posted at Terra Nova)

Last month, I had the pleasure to co-organize a small event in Seoul about digital and physical space, and how technologies reshape them. One of the speaker, Jake Song gave an interesting talk about the evolution of “virtual space” in multi-player games. A South Korean programmer, regarded as one of the greatest game developers in Korea, Jake is one the of the creator of Lineage and is now CEO of XL Games.

He started by describing text MUDs (1978), in which 100 to 200 concurrent players wandered around virtual places in the form of interconnected rooms. He described to what extent today’s MMORPG inherits most of its design (chat, emote, social structure, etc) but more interestingly pointed out how MUD space was “not correct in 2D sense” using the following schema:

The next step corresponded to 2D MMORPG such as Lineage or Ultima Online, which involved 3000~5000 concurrent players per world. Due to the technical impossibility to have everyone in the same place, there are “parallel universes. As opposed to MUDs, space in geographically correct and as he showed with exampled, players approximately needed about 2 hours from end to end by walking. Through various examples, he showed how buildings are smaller than real world and the necessity to have fast transportation methods (horses, teleportation, etc.)

Then, with 3D MMORPG like EverQuest, Lineage II or WoW, game space is designed for 2000~3000 concurrent players. Compared to 2D MMORPG, the number of concurrent players are reduced somewhat because server has to handle more complex 3D data. The game space generally corresponds to 20 × 20 km in size and transportation methods are needed more than ever (mounts, flying mounts, teleportation). Level design included place utility buildings for players to access conveniently. Shops, banks, etc can be placed far from each other to make players feel the city big, but it will make players inconvenient (” Down time means idle time such like staying in town, moving to other place, etc.“). The virtual environment is large enough to feel like the real world and is similar enough to use common sense to navigate.

He concluded with the challenges: the difficulty to have larger game world, the possibility to have user-generated content (to populate worlds), the difficulty to have “one big world” and the ever-growing inclusion of environmental change (weather changing accordingly with weather feeds), evolution over time (deformable terrain
destructible building, changing forest, buildings turned into ruins, etc.

So, down the road, the main issues are:

• geographical correctness: should the system looks and behave like a real-life equivalent (which somehwat connects to the work of Harry Drew).
• given that geographical correctness is now common, time and transportation is an issue: it takes time to go from A to B and transportation systems must be designed (teleportation, flying in Second Life).
• presence of concurrent players.
• presence of “places” with functional capabilities (communication, trading).

Although this may look obvious to many reader, this description if interesting from the research point of view (as well as to have the developers’ opinion). In my case, this is important for my research about how location-awareness interfaces can convey information about people’s whereabouts in digital spaces. Given the differences to represent space, there are some implications in the way location-awareness tools can be designed. More about this topic later.

Having work recently on implications of web/web2.0 practices for the video game industry, I was interested in the relationships between social software and video games. Trying to have a quiet look into things (as usual), I tried to make a sort of typology of the different directions at stake here:

First, a simple option would be to simply think of “games” as social objects (in the sense Jyri describes it), which would lead to services allowing people to discus, comment, talk, criticize games or to use games or application played as a way to form a model of peers. In a sense, it would be about taking games (their physical instantiation) as belongings that can be tracked: My Things is a social platform that enable such a function. And if there are not physical instantiation? Well, Wakoopa would fit given that it “tracks what kind of software or games you use, and lets you create your own software profile“. You can then share, tag, comment and web-two-point-o-ize (about) games.

A second possibility is that one could thing about “social software” as a social layer on top of games, i.e. as a way to find people to play games with (a problem referred to as “LFG”: Looking for Group). This is the sort of service one can benefit from platforms such as Rupture (”Rupture connects you with the real people you play with online. You can automatically publish your character and guild profiles to the web, share pictures, chat with friends and recruit new people to play with.“) or Magelo (”Launched in 2001, the Character Profile was the first tool on the market that could create a persistence of an in game character out of the game trough a simple web representation (…) Another sample is our proprietary software client, Magelo Update (MU). MU act as a 100% reliable game data collector, as well as a synchronization and authentication tool for Magelo Characters Profiles.“). What is interesting here is both the profile building (either explicitly or automatically created through in-game data collection) and the social networking capabilities. There are still lots of room in the design space here, especially if you think that most of the work has been done for hardcore-gamers-oriented MMO. Adding a social layer to more casual MMO would be a good option. On that LFG topic, see also here for a discussion about Facebook and gaming.

Finally, the third possibility to think about a social software as a game itself. An interesting direction is the one taken by Justin Hall in his “passive multiplayer gaming project (” a game that you get points and levels in based on the surfing you do on the Internet“). I’ve heard some other projects (like Playoo) are working on that social+game direction too (not in the PMOG concept though).

The underlying variable here is to think about the relationships between the game and the social software. The steps I described is actually a continuum from which social software are totally independent or a new layer on top of games OR the game itself. Anyhow, this topic will be surely addressed at LIFT08.

Why do I blog this some thoughts for social computing and gaming design space, potential material for further talks and actions.

In lessons from first-person shooters, Robert Janelle curiously describes the quirks one can find in FPS:

“Red Barrels Always Explode When Pierced By Bullets
You Run Faster When Holding a Knife
You Can Fit ANYTHING In Your Pocket
Coloured Doors Are Locked
Green Liquid is Harmful
Helpful Items Are Just Lying Around
Crates Break Into Splinters When Pierced“

Why do I blog this? a video-game world is a “microworld” in the sense that it’s a close environment with its own rules and processes. As an artifacts crafted and designed by humans, it embeds values and folk mechanisms about how the world could behave. It’s then curious to see what are people’s projections as the one described above. Would a game level be boring/non-challenging if it replicated the material world?

Ecotron is new feature/device in Habbo Hotel:

“The Ecotron is the latest in Furni recycling systems. No longer will you have to delete your room, turn off the computer or dump your unwanted Furni on a friend. Now you can throw it all into the Ecotron and get some brand new Furni back! Open the catalog and click and drop your unwanted Furni into the Ecotron - when you’ve put enough in, the power bar will turn green. You can either accept the bounty or continue to fill up the Ecotron for the next gift.“

As described by Sulake:

“In Habbo, it is possible to recycle the virtual furni that you don’t need anymore. In exchange for recycling the old items, using a recycling device called Ecotron, the Habbo user receives a brand new piece of furni, which is in fact created from the old materials, or so the design makes you believe. In a virtual world the bits of data are of course always new.

A joke? Maybe not. Since it’s launch, the Ecotron device has recycled 4.634.117 pieces of virtual furniture and the amount increases all the time.“

Why do I blog this? recycling is, a priori, an intriguing practice in digital environment (in which everything is recyclable by definition, because of the “code” nature of artifacts). What is more striking here is the spatial/artifact recycling which may be meant to bring people to recycle material stuff (after being used to recycle digtial stuff)?

I wish Habbo’s artifacts could also age and evolve over time, but this recycle bit is a step towards re-thinking the evolution of digital objects.