Author: Jesper

Speaking at Columbia April 10th at 6PM

Title: What Makes Casual Games so Appealing, so Attractive: Looking for ‘the Casual’ in Casual Video Games

Abstract: Given that video games are as wonderful as they are, why would someone choose not to play video games? It seems that video games for a long period of time have alienated a large part of the population by way of their themes, their assumptions about the player’s familiarity with video game conventions, and by the demands games have placed on the player’s time. With the Nintendo Wii, Guitar Hero, and downloadable games like Diner Dash, however, video games appear to be reaching beyond the traditional game audience. In this talk, I will discuss why many people do not play video games, and identify the broader appeal of today’s casual games.

Details:
Thursday, April 10
06:00 PM to 08:00 PM
Columbia University
2960 Broadway
New York, NY – 10027
Room: Thompson Hall, Room 510 at Teachers College, Columbia University, between Broadway and Amsterdam on 120th Street. Check in with security (located in between Broadway and Amsterdam on 120th) and they will direct you the correct room.

Alitalia: No Games for You

The Italian airline Alitalia is floundering, so let me kick them when they’re down.

I was flying with them last summer, and to my surprise the cabin crew informed me that I was not allowed to use my Nintendo DS for the duration of the flight. Lo and behold, the safety instructions specifically illustrate that you can’t play Gameboy. Why? Who knows?

I tried to get into a philosophical discussion with the crew regarding their definition of games, the distinction between playing a game on a PDA (which they allowed) and on a dedicated device, and whether the ban only concerned games played with a D-pad. They did not bite.

No games for you

Speaking at Indiana University, Georgia Tech

Indiana University

12:30-1:45 pm on Friday, March 28, 2008
Indiana University Bloomington, Dept. of Telecommunications, Room RTV 226

Talk: Games for Making Friends and Enemies: A Small Theory of Games in Social Contexts.

It is easy to forget that before the single player video game, most video games were for more than one player. In this work in progress talk, I will argue that many of the more successful multiplayer games, from Parcheesi to Rock Band to Animal Crossing acquire their power by piggybacking on existing social relations, thus acquiring many layers of meaning when played, as well as ambiguously threatening to rewrite these relations. By use of digital and non-digital examples, I will outline a theory of how games acquire meaning from the context in which they are played.

Georgia Tech

Monday, March 31st
TSRB 132
1:30-2:30 pm

Talk: Hardcore players of casual games: Locating the “casual” in casual games.

Casual games are usually described as relaxing games to be played for short periods of time, but studies have shown that many players of casual games play more than 10 hours a week. In essence, it seems that casual players play in “hardcore” ways. In this talk I will discuss the problematic distinction between “hardcore” and “casual” players by examining the new field of casual games and answering the question: Should we talk about casual games or casual players?

America,

America,
    Why is it is always too hot or too cold?

America,
    I’ve got one word for you: Thermostats

America,
    When we came to Brooklyn, the landlord said we should
    open the window if it got too warm

America,
    You know how this hurts my fragile northern soul

America,
    It is not exactly rocket science

America,
    The right temperature is patriotic too

America,
    I have a truckload of Danish radiator controls to sell you

America,
    Who cheers when you open that window?

 

 

 

(With apologies to Allen Ginsberg.)

Better Graphics, Diminishing Returns

Are game graphics at a point of diminishing returns?

In that case, what do we mean by “diminishing returns”?

  • Does it mean that an increase in the graphical budget of a game does not increase sales correspondingly?
  • Or does it mean that, subjectively, we are at a point where things look “good enough”?
  • Or are we talking negative returns? That increasing polygon count makes humans look worse due to the uncanny valley?

We could also look at a case study. Megan Fox and Stuart Compton have an article in the latest Game Developer Magazine about Ambient Occlusive Crease Shading.

(Disclaimer: I certainly respect the work done here, and I do not mean to pick on these authors. The stated goal is even of moving away from the “imitative” towards the “illustrative”, which I find good. And perhaps things will look different once they start moving.)

Nevertheless: How big a difference do you see between figure 5 with, and figure 6 without ambient occlusion? How much effort is it worth going from figure 6 to figure 5? Is this not diminishing returns?

Fox & Compton - Ambient Occlusive Crease Shading

(Illustration by Fox & Compton, from Game Developer Magazine, March 2008)