Why UC 256 Isn't Fun (Yet)

Does anybody else feel like UC 256 just isn't fun yet? I'm enjoying most of the readings and assignments, but something about the class has been bothering me. What follows is not a rant, but rather a halfway-done-the-semester reflection on the class.

It's fairly obvious that the grading system of UC 256 is modeled after the classic game feature of "leveling up." As a student earns points from completing assignments, he eventually reach a new tier, or "level," which corresponds with a higher grade. However, as I'm finishing up midterms and starting to get grade-conscious, I am now realizing that I still have an F in UC 256. Now, I'm not sure if it's even possible to not have an F (Would someone with a D- like to rub it in my face?), but the fact that I do is extremely frustrating. How am I supposed to explain this to my parents?

I feel this frustration highlights one of the most important features a game should integrate and UC 256 lacks - the buy-in effect. Most video games that I have played (and enjoyed) have allowed me to level up quickly at the beginning, then at an increasingly slower rate. This has allowed me to reap rewards at the beginning of the game and experience the gratification of leveling up quickly, which then motivates me to work harder to get to the next level, even if it requires more work. The way this class is set up requires one to reach a high point threshold before he can start gaining levels, but then makes the levels an equal gap of points apart. This is, in many ways demotivating.

Think about it like this - would you like to play a video game where the first time you level up halfway through the game, then it's easy and predictable to level up after that? Probably not.

Below, I show a graph that roughly models our current grading system (in black) and a grading system that uses the buy-in effect (in red). They both require the same number of points for the highest level, however, the current system uses a linear progression, starting at a large number of points, whereas the buy-in system uses an exponential or logarithmic progression, starting much closer to 0 points. 

Note how at first, when using a buy-in system, a little bit of work is rewarded at first, but as the levels get higher, the amount of work required to get to the next level increases. This is why we don't quit games so quickly. We get addicted to winning, so when the challenge of gaining another level faces us, we gladly do the "grind."

I understand there are some problems with the buy-in system in the classroom setting. In reality, quite a bit is at stake in UC 256 - after all, employers are looking at our GPA, not our level in World of Warcraft, so the motivation to do well most likely persists among the students in the class, regardless of how the grading structure is set up. Additionally, I realize that the way grades are assigned in this class is calibrated towards how much one has to do to "not fail," rather than succeed. Since I am still failing halfway through the semester, that clearly is quite a bit of work. It may be problematic if someone can get a C in the class overnight.

I can't wait until I break the D- threshold, then maybe I'll start enjoying all this work a bit more.

What do you guys think? Should the grading structure be changed to reflect the system often used in video games, or does the fact that it's for a class just not allow for it?

- Jonathan Lipkin

Read More

Why Jeremy Lin Drives Me Crazy

       I’m going to come right out and say it: I don’t like Jeremy Lin.  I can’t stand him. People ask me all the time how I could possibly feel this way. And they're right too. He is a fairy tale story, an international phenomenon, and is single handedly saving the New York Knicks’ season. Well, it’s probably the last point that drives me crazy. No, definitely.

            The reason for my harsh feelings has been with me my entire life. I was born and raised outside of Philadelphia in a family that bled the color of whatever Philly team was in season. The Phillies’ world series in 2008 was a top three moment of my life. I got to watch the great, once in a lifetime talents of Allen Iverson and saw many successful, yet ultimately disappointing seasons out of the Flyers and Eagles. That doesn't sound so bad on the surface but if you’re keeping track at home, (and I know a lot of you are) that’s one championship in my short 20 years on this earth.

Linsanely Annoying

            What then, keeps me interested when my hometown heroes can’t win the big game? It’s simple, rooting against teams I hate – many of which happen to be located in New York City.

     Now lets get back to Jeremy Lin. For those who don’t know Jeremy Lin is the first Asian American basketball player to ever play in the NBA. He played his college ball at Harvard (after being passed on by a handful of better programs), and bounced around the NBA and D League teams for about two years. In fact, he was reportedly on the verge of being cut yet again, this time by the New York Knicks, when he changed his fate forever. The Knicks’ two best players went down with injuries. In came Lin and did he ever take advantage of the opportunity; scoring more points in his first four starts than any player since the NBA/ABA merger, and leading the woeful Knicks to wins in all of those games. Add that to his obvious emotion and excitement for the game, and his Tebow-like faith in Christianity, and you have the recipe for an American sports hero (or at least a media hailstorm). Let’s recap:

-Passed over by better teams in college – Check

- First Asian American to play in the NBA – Check

- Almost cut by the Knicks before exploding and saving his team’s season on the biggest stage the NBA has to offer –Check

- Faith that rivals Tim Tebow – Check

That's quite a resume.

I Hope "Linvasion" Is Better than
"Kobe Doin Work"

       Basically, this guy is perfect. How could I not like him? He seems like a gentleman, he doesn’t get into trouble off the court and he is, by all accounts, a tremendous worker and teammate. It’s pretty simple, actually. He’s a New York Knick. He wears blue and orange and plays in Madison Square Garden; Spike Lee is probably writing a script titled, “The Linvasion: The Jeremy Lin Story” as we speak, AND he’s saving their season and coach Mike D’Antoni’s job. I can’t stand them, and it’s just the way I was raised. I hate that Sportscenter shows the Knicks’ highlights five times every hour, when my Sixers – who are six games ahead of the Knicks in the standings and by all accounts a better team – often don’t get mentioned at all. If my team can’t win, then you can bet I want the Knicks to lose. For me, it’s like the slogan on those old t-shirts, “Eat. Sleep. Hate the Knicks”. And I understand all the publicity - it’s what comes with playing in New York - and that’s exactly why I hate Jeremy Lin. I'm sick of hearing about him. Maybe it would be different if he played in San Antonio or Milwaukee, or Sacramento, but he doesn’t. He plays for the Knicks and for me, that’s simply unforgivable.

Sorry Jeremy, I can’t wait until Carmelo Anthony comes back and steals all of your touches. 
Jonathan Miller

Read More

Minor Quest 1

                    On Friday January 27, four of our guild members Alex Chen, Michael Scheible, Jon Lipkin and Elise van den Berg went to the game library as part of our Minor Quest. We didn’t have trouble finding the library since we have some game fanatics in our guild who already knew where the library was. Jon and Elise had never been to the library and were intrigued by the place.  It was full of gaming equipment, some old, some new, and was also packed with avid gamers! After looking at all the games, the four of us decided to play a classic, Mario Party on the Nintendo 64 as our pre-2000 game, and Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 on the Xbox 360 as our post-2000 game. During the course of our quest, we came to the conclusion that game theory and simulation are concepts that game designers have consistently included in games over the years.

The first video game our group played was Mario Party 2 on the Nintendo 64. It is a game that is very similar to a physical board game, but it initiates a mini-game after every round and uses a more dynamic game board that can be altered by the players’ actions, utilizing the capabilities of video games. The ultimate goal was to be the person who gets the most stars, which are obtained by reaching points on the board and paying for them (if you have enough coins).

 

While exploring the Duderstadt Center, looking for the video game archive, our team bonded very well – however, you wouldn’t have thought so if you watched the way we interacted in the game. We stole coins and items from each other and were often pitted against each other in mini-games. Our strategic interactions were oftentimes selfish and downright mean. Of course, once the game ended, you wouldn’t have been able to tell we had done any of that – we were back to being friends.

This is reminiscent of the key and frame framework presented by Mia Consalvo in “There is No Magic Circle.” When playing Mario Party 2, our group entered a new frame, with a distinct keying. We adopted new identities, as represented by our avatars, and were placed in a competitive atmosphere. It was mutually understood, however, that whatever happens within this frame is not to be extrapolated beyond it. That is, if we are selfish in the game, we are not necessarily selfish outside of it. This belief held when the game ended and will likely continue – unless we sit down to play Mario Party 2 again.

After our group’s game of Mario Party we decided to play Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. We started off playing a team based objective game: search and destroy. In this game type each team ( in our case 2 v 2) has to take a bomb and plant it at 1 of 2 sites in a certain amount of time; if a team fails to plant a bomb or the whole team dies they lose the round. If the team plants the bomb the have to keep it from being defused and if they do they win the round. Each team plays both offense and defense with an overtime round if the score is tied after 2 rounds. While simple games such as the prison game only offers the player a few select outcomes and options this game offers the player thousands of different options. From choosing what type of gun (sniper vs. assault rifle) to the way you end up working with your teammate. Our guild had a great time playing this game, we played about 5 games overall, each time trying different combinations of guns, strategies with our teammates, and different maps. With all of these varying options for players in this game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has a tremendous replay value for gamers.

The game was a prime example of the concept of the “magic circle”, as the first-person nature of the game resulted in the transportation of the player into a virtual world in which the rules and bounds of reality became malleable via competition, perspective, and state-of-the-art graphics. The degree of realism added to the significant feeling of interaction with the game and the other players. It is interesting to note that while we were friends in reality, we were “killing” each other with virtual weapons in the game.

In conclusion, these two games represented the concepts of games that we studied in class, and illustrated the strategies that game designers have employed over the years to develop virtual worlds that inspire competition and simulation outside of the real world. 

Read More

Playing Nice

I found an awesome article about a guy who is trying to play the open-world RPG Skyrim as a pacifist monk (watch the video after the break for more). In a game designed to reward strength and the ability to defeat opponents at any cost, he is making an attempt to complete the game without killing anything.

The game is versatile enough to support his attempt. One can use a calm spell to turn any ravaging man beast into a civilized, non-aggressive character. But, as expected, he has already ran into major challenges. Like most fantasy RPGs, the game prescribes the act of killing as a means of progression through the story. How can he "win" if he can't kill? In short, he can't.

He created his own game - his own magic circle - within the overarching game of Skyrim, but it's not compatible. By limiting his permissible choices and actions, he effectively prevented himself from completing the story that Skyrim tells. What can this tell us about game design?

I would like to suggest that game design in a game as open-ended as Skyrim should not require the player to adopt a particular philosophy about the virtual world he interacts with. There is no reason choosing not to kill should not be an acceptable play style. While it may not be entirely advantageous to do so, if one chooses to take the pacifist route, he will be able to experience a great feeling of accomplishment - a prideful one that is not just based on the challenge of beating the game without killing, but one that is elicited from taking deliberate steps to adopt a high degree of morality.

This, of course, requires the designers to implement mechanisms to make this possible. Perhaps the calm spell may be useful, but the pacifist game becomes monotonous if that's the only way to demonstrate morality.

In game theory, there is a branch of study called mechanism design, in which the designer of a game tries to influence the actors to behave in a certain manner by first using techniques to capture information about an actor, then discriminately using that information to influence the actor's strategy.

While it is not an entirely similar concept, I would like to see video games do a similar thing - capture more information about players to tailor the game against them later on. Understand what the player values, what actions he takes, what actions he refrains from - then offer large rewards (again, based on what he may find valuable) for deviating from the norm. There are countless possibilities, and every version of the game can be unique to each player. I have seen rudimentary versions of this in games before (think Fable), but even then, one's moral disposition is more of a label than a determining factor of events. And even if it does prevent or enable certain events from happening, they more often support the disposition than challenge it.

When games advance to the point that they learn about a player and create stories around the player to challenge his beliefs and worldview, video games will be finally utilize their interactive and computational nature in full.

- Jonathan Lipkin

Read More