Can games actually "simulate" the experiences of, say, tactical combat? What it is really like to drive a tank or fly a F-4 Phantom?
Yes or no- and why?
Friday, August 7, 2009
Important Side Topic
This week has been one of the most frightening weeks in my life as an American- more frightening than 9-11 to be honest. Everyone, regardless of who they voted for in 2008, should be equally outraged and concerned about what has occurred this week in our country.
Why?
1) American citizens who showed up to congressional and senate town hall meetings with their representatives were referred to as a "angry mob" brandishing "swastikas and nazi symbols", shouting down people in a "orchestrated" or "organized" effort to derail the Health Care Reform Bill.
2) The White House (yes, THE White House) on its blog requested that people e-mail them information regarding e-mails and web sites (like blogs) who disagree with the bill (i.e. contain "fishy" information). It is unknown why The White House would want to collect this information and what they plan to do with it.
3) At the request of the Administration, actual organized political action and community groups who support the bill (and receive billions of dollars of government money via the Stimulus Bill) were "encouraged" to show up at town halls to counter those nasty, angry, swastika-carrying mobs.
This is a very, very disturbing turn of events in American history- almost unprecedented and reminiscent of how totalitarian governments handle internal dissent. It is very un-American.
Let's deal with each point:
1) The cries of outrage and recrimination by supports of the bill come from the very same people who over the past 8+ years on a almost daily basis protested the actions of the previous administration as per "free speech", "questioning authority" and "dissent is patriotic" argument. Hillary Clinton even spoke out on this that it is not unpatriotic to dissent and question policy of a sitting administration. You can find that speech on YouTube along with speeches on the same topic from Dick Durban, John Murtha and even our current President.
This is also the same crowd that disrupted political events and congressional/senate hearings by shouting down people, rampaging through the streets destroying private property and burning the former president in effigy. They constructed weapons to use against police during the RNC Convention in Minneapolis, tried to drop objects from overpasses onto buses carrying RNC delegates and carried urine bombs to pelt people who they disagreed with.
So far I have not seen or heard of any behavior close to that at ANY town hall meeting- but some how what occurred this week was considered the actions of an "angry mob"? There were no urine bombs, nail weapons, tear gas, destruction of property, no one sabotaging of people's cars, no burning of President Obama in effigy.
The standard of "patriotic dissent" is now not what you say or do, but based on who/what you are protesting. This is clearly hypocritical. If progressives demonstrate or speak up it is "patriotic", if conservatives do the same it is "angry mob". One is not a more "patriotic" form of free speech than the other.
2) Imagine if the previous administration has posted something similar on the White House web site to gather information on e-mails and blogs against its policies- the outrage would have been deafening. This current flash@whitehouse.gov program smacks of Richard Nixon collecting an "Enemies List" back in the early 1970s. We now have a administration that is requesting that citizen forward information to them regarding their fellow citizen's opinions (which is protect free speech) which are at odds with the President. How Orwellian, fascist and UNAMERICAN!
The former administration was referred to as a "fascist, nazi police state" and the former president as "Chimpy McBush Hitler" for running a legal NSA wiretap program where members of both the House and Senate were regularly briefed on. If that is "fascist", how do you classify what the current Administration is doing with this "snitch" program?
3) Those political action groups are posting "want ads" on web sites like Craig's List to pay people to attend town halls to counter those opposing the bill. You tell me if this doesn't smell "fishy" when groups that support the administration (and receive billions of dollars of funding) send paid protesters to town halls. This is more in line with "The Gangs of New York" than "free speech".
Combined with government "investment" into banks, car companies, financial institutions, industry and possibly health care- these attempts to chill free speech and collect information on citizens makes our country more like Fascist Italy or Communist Cuba than America. It is athoritarian, creepy and dangerous.
And you can report this posting directly to the White House at flash@whitehouse.gov .
Why?
1) American citizens who showed up to congressional and senate town hall meetings with their representatives were referred to as a "angry mob" brandishing "swastikas and nazi symbols", shouting down people in a "orchestrated" or "organized" effort to derail the Health Care Reform Bill.
2) The White House (yes, THE White House) on its blog requested that people e-mail them information regarding e-mails and web sites (like blogs) who disagree with the bill (i.e. contain "fishy" information). It is unknown why The White House would want to collect this information and what they plan to do with it.
3) At the request of the Administration, actual organized political action and community groups who support the bill (and receive billions of dollars of government money via the Stimulus Bill) were "encouraged" to show up at town halls to counter those nasty, angry, swastika-carrying mobs.
This is a very, very disturbing turn of events in American history- almost unprecedented and reminiscent of how totalitarian governments handle internal dissent. It is very un-American.
Let's deal with each point:
1) The cries of outrage and recrimination by supports of the bill come from the very same people who over the past 8+ years on a almost daily basis protested the actions of the previous administration as per "free speech", "questioning authority" and "dissent is patriotic" argument. Hillary Clinton even spoke out on this that it is not unpatriotic to dissent and question policy of a sitting administration. You can find that speech on YouTube along with speeches on the same topic from Dick Durban, John Murtha and even our current President.
This is also the same crowd that disrupted political events and congressional/senate hearings by shouting down people, rampaging through the streets destroying private property and burning the former president in effigy. They constructed weapons to use against police during the RNC Convention in Minneapolis, tried to drop objects from overpasses onto buses carrying RNC delegates and carried urine bombs to pelt people who they disagreed with.
So far I have not seen or heard of any behavior close to that at ANY town hall meeting- but some how what occurred this week was considered the actions of an "angry mob"? There were no urine bombs, nail weapons, tear gas, destruction of property, no one sabotaging of people's cars, no burning of President Obama in effigy.
The standard of "patriotic dissent" is now not what you say or do, but based on who/what you are protesting. This is clearly hypocritical. If progressives demonstrate or speak up it is "patriotic", if conservatives do the same it is "angry mob". One is not a more "patriotic" form of free speech than the other.
2) Imagine if the previous administration has posted something similar on the White House web site to gather information on e-mails and blogs against its policies- the outrage would have been deafening. This current flash@whitehouse.gov program smacks of Richard Nixon collecting an "Enemies List" back in the early 1970s. We now have a administration that is requesting that citizen forward information to them regarding their fellow citizen's opinions (which is protect free speech) which are at odds with the President. How Orwellian, fascist and UNAMERICAN!
The former administration was referred to as a "fascist, nazi police state" and the former president as "Chimpy McBush Hitler" for running a legal NSA wiretap program where members of both the House and Senate were regularly briefed on. If that is "fascist", how do you classify what the current Administration is doing with this "snitch" program?
3) Those political action groups are posting "want ads" on web sites like Craig's List to pay people to attend town halls to counter those opposing the bill. You tell me if this doesn't smell "fishy" when groups that support the administration (and receive billions of dollars of funding) send paid protesters to town halls. This is more in line with "The Gangs of New York" than "free speech".
Combined with government "investment" into banks, car companies, financial institutions, industry and possibly health care- these attempts to chill free speech and collect information on citizens makes our country more like Fascist Italy or Communist Cuba than America. It is athoritarian, creepy and dangerous.
And you can report this posting directly to the White House at flash@whitehouse.gov .
Thursday, July 30, 2009
"Realism" versus "Fun"
One of the most difficult problems my students face in designing a game project based on a historical event is figuring out how to balance "realism" and "fun". In commercial, entertainment-oriented products this is a real challenge because gamers expect a realistic experience that is not overly frustrating or "real".
It is a given that "realism" and "fun" are subjective terms and everyone has an opinion on what constitutes each. However, there are a few practical guidelines a designer can use to assist in dealing with "realism" versus"fun" issue. Considering these guidelines prior to coding or putting pen to paper should help focus your design.
Ask yourself....
a) Who Is My Target Consumer?: Know and understand who you are designing the game for. Are you designing for a casual gamer who is o.k. with a less detailed, more abstract style of product that is more entertainment than simulation? Or are you designing a product to target a hard-core simmer who expects a very high level of accuracy and technical detail that is more interested in a experience than entertainment?
An example of this would be Destineer's Indianapolis 500 Legends for the Wii. A topic geared for older gamers and racing sim enthusiast on the Wii makes little sense- the Nintendo demographic is primarily younger and more casual in general. The controller, while cool, cannot replace a top of the line wheel-pedal setup most racing simmers use. So this product does not make a good fit for the average Nintendo consumer or the racing sim crowd.
b) Using The Best Format/Platform?: Tabletop, interactive, console, PC, miniatures.... what format is best suited for your product and can give the consumer the desired experience. All formats are not equal- does a flight simulation on the PC offer the desired experience for a hard-core flight enthusiast than, say, a card game if your desired experience is the visceral "feel" of air combat in three dimensions?
An example would be Bold Games/Third Wire's Wings over Vietnam, a PC flight simulator that allows interaction within a three dimensional environment- thus offering an illusion of flying an F-4 Phantom over Hanoi as opposed to One Small Step's Fox One, a air combat card game that offers two dimensional game play using cards to simulate air combat. Which offers a more "realistic" experience or feel?
c) Does "Complexity" Equate "Realism"?: This is the #1 trap student fall into. Making the processes or sequence of play so complex, detailed and tedious doesn't equate to a more "realistic" product. Complexity for complexity sake is death- especially in a commercial product! If gamers cannot understand how to play the game or completing even the most mundane task takes 2hrs, expect the game to go on the shelf.
An example of this from my experience was the SPI board game, Air War. Air War was touted as being the most realistic tabletop air combat game ever- but even pilots who flew the very aircraft found in Air War had issues playing the game! Air War was literally complexity for the sake of complexity and ended up collecting dust on my shelf for 20+ years (or used as a door stop).
Gamers today are generally conditioned to fast game play. My rule was if someone could not start a game and get playing within a few minutes there was a problem. Designers should make sure that they keep this in mind when composing documentation and mechanics. Coming across as a technical "wonk" doesn't impress anyone- elegant, straightforward and accurate design work does!
-IF IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE COMPLEX- DON'T MAKE IT COMPLEX!-
An example of this would be Dan Verrsen's Hornet Leader, a solitaire card-driven game that simulates air combat missions with an excellent level of realism using a simple, straightforward design.
d) Advocating for the "Newbie"?: Even if you are designing a simulation, make it accessible for novice or "newbie" gamers. Avoid steep learning curves that will turn off beginners- use plenty of examples in multiple forms (i.e. text explanation, example of play, visual example/diagram), offer tutorial levels/scenarios, reference charts, walkthroughs, etc.. Advanced gamers will just pass these by for the most part, but the newbies will really appreciate the initial "hand-holding" and have a better overall experience.
An example of "helping the noob" would be Acdamy Game's Conflict of Heroes: Awaking the Bear- a East Front tactical war game. The rules are color coded to indicate rules, examples and hints/tips and uses plenty of diagrams and graphic gameplay examples. Mark Walker, developer/designer of the Lock N Load series of war games, offers a Flash demo on his web site- visually walking players through a couple turns of his game, Band of Heroes.
With interactive, balanced difficulty levels are another valuable way to assist a "noob".
I'm trying to keep it general, practical and straightforward without getting into "geekspeak" or theory. I believe if you apply these guidelines it will help you design a better, more enjoyable product for your consumers.
It is a given that "realism" and "fun" are subjective terms and everyone has an opinion on what constitutes each. However, there are a few practical guidelines a designer can use to assist in dealing with "realism" versus"fun" issue. Considering these guidelines prior to coding or putting pen to paper should help focus your design.
Ask yourself....
a) Who Is My Target Consumer?: Know and understand who you are designing the game for. Are you designing for a casual gamer who is o.k. with a less detailed, more abstract style of product that is more entertainment than simulation? Or are you designing a product to target a hard-core simmer who expects a very high level of accuracy and technical detail that is more interested in a experience than entertainment?
An example of this would be Destineer's Indianapolis 500 Legends for the Wii. A topic geared for older gamers and racing sim enthusiast on the Wii makes little sense- the Nintendo demographic is primarily younger and more casual in general. The controller, while cool, cannot replace a top of the line wheel-pedal setup most racing simmers use. So this product does not make a good fit for the average Nintendo consumer or the racing sim crowd.
b) Using The Best Format/Platform?: Tabletop, interactive, console, PC, miniatures.... what format is best suited for your product and can give the consumer the desired experience. All formats are not equal- does a flight simulation on the PC offer the desired experience for a hard-core flight enthusiast than, say, a card game if your desired experience is the visceral "feel" of air combat in three dimensions?
An example would be Bold Games/Third Wire's Wings over Vietnam, a PC flight simulator that allows interaction within a three dimensional environment- thus offering an illusion of flying an F-4 Phantom over Hanoi as opposed to One Small Step's Fox One, a air combat card game that offers two dimensional game play using cards to simulate air combat. Which offers a more "realistic" experience or feel?
c) Does "Complexity" Equate "Realism"?: This is the #1 trap student fall into. Making the processes or sequence of play so complex, detailed and tedious doesn't equate to a more "realistic" product. Complexity for complexity sake is death- especially in a commercial product! If gamers cannot understand how to play the game or completing even the most mundane task takes 2hrs, expect the game to go on the shelf.
An example of this from my experience was the SPI board game, Air War. Air War was touted as being the most realistic tabletop air combat game ever- but even pilots who flew the very aircraft found in Air War had issues playing the game! Air War was literally complexity for the sake of complexity and ended up collecting dust on my shelf for 20+ years (or used as a door stop).
Gamers today are generally conditioned to fast game play. My rule was if someone could not start a game and get playing within a few minutes there was a problem. Designers should make sure that they keep this in mind when composing documentation and mechanics. Coming across as a technical "wonk" doesn't impress anyone- elegant, straightforward and accurate design work does!
-IF IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE COMPLEX- DON'T MAKE IT COMPLEX!-
An example of this would be Dan Verrsen's Hornet Leader, a solitaire card-driven game that simulates air combat missions with an excellent level of realism using a simple, straightforward design.
d) Advocating for the "Newbie"?: Even if you are designing a simulation, make it accessible for novice or "newbie" gamers. Avoid steep learning curves that will turn off beginners- use plenty of examples in multiple forms (i.e. text explanation, example of play, visual example/diagram), offer tutorial levels/scenarios, reference charts, walkthroughs, etc.. Advanced gamers will just pass these by for the most part, but the newbies will really appreciate the initial "hand-holding" and have a better overall experience.
An example of "helping the noob" would be Acdamy Game's Conflict of Heroes: Awaking the Bear- a East Front tactical war game. The rules are color coded to indicate rules, examples and hints/tips and uses plenty of diagrams and graphic gameplay examples. Mark Walker, developer/designer of the Lock N Load series of war games, offers a Flash demo on his web site- visually walking players through a couple turns of his game, Band of Heroes.
With interactive, balanced difficulty levels are another valuable way to assist a "noob".
I'm trying to keep it general, practical and straightforward without getting into "geekspeak" or theory. I believe if you apply these guidelines it will help you design a better, more enjoyable product for your consumers.
Welcome to VqB!
I decided to create a new blog for the discussion of game design in relation to military history. Tabletop, interactive, card-based.... any format or platform is open for discussion as long as they involve military history or contemporary military operations in relation to game design.
No elves, orcs, klingons, wookies, drax or space marines please!
A topic I am very interested in discussing would be the application of games and their use as training or educational aids. One of the last projects I worked on in the interactive industry was a training simulator for the U.S. Marine Corps- so I have some expertise in this area. I have some very strong opinions on just how effective multi-million dollar interactive training simulators are in prepping our troops for a 21st century battlefield and combating a 4th Generation Warfare (4GW) adversary. Hint: They don't for the most part.
So many government agencies at the federal, state and local level are now using games to simulate natural disasters and terrorist attacks in order to better prepare for events or even forecast them. What used to be a hobby for kids and geeks is now a multi-billion dollar industry with many applications beyond entertainment.
As a full-time instructor in a Game Design and Development Bachelors program, making sure my students understand that the craft of Game Design has more to offer than working at EA or Sony is something I emphasise almost daily. Students are always welcome to post.
I want to be clear that the opinions here are mine and in no way the opinions or policies of the institution I work for.
No elves, orcs, klingons, wookies, drax or space marines please!
A topic I am very interested in discussing would be the application of games and their use as training or educational aids. One of the last projects I worked on in the interactive industry was a training simulator for the U.S. Marine Corps- so I have some expertise in this area. I have some very strong opinions on just how effective multi-million dollar interactive training simulators are in prepping our troops for a 21st century battlefield and combating a 4th Generation Warfare (4GW) adversary. Hint: They don't for the most part.
So many government agencies at the federal, state and local level are now using games to simulate natural disasters and terrorist attacks in order to better prepare for events or even forecast them. What used to be a hobby for kids and geeks is now a multi-billion dollar industry with many applications beyond entertainment.
As a full-time instructor in a Game Design and Development Bachelors program, making sure my students understand that the craft of Game Design has more to offer than working at EA or Sony is something I emphasise almost daily. Students are always welcome to post.
I want to be clear that the opinions here are mine and in no way the opinions or policies of the institution I work for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
