Dadaab Wiki - User contributions [en]

Edmund's Page

2019-04-04T21:31:52Z

Edmund: /* Production 7 */

== Production 2 ==

Flow was mentioned a few times throughout Bogost’s book. Having already read some work on the topic of flow, I felt it would be useful to dedicate a separate chapter to its coverage. Bogost referenced an important work on flow by Csikszentmihalyi, and used the term in sections dealing with relaxation, and to a lesser degree in the 'Music' and 'Transit' sections. The latter's mention was albeit, more likely based on a logistical definition such as when referring to traffic rates and volumes of people or goods.

B’s ‘Music’ section, however, is a useful “in” to understanding flow due to its emphasis on timing, and various embodiments. This is supported in athletic, and musical performance literature which espouses the benefits of flow-like states, and recommends rhythmic breathing, and other auditory devices. Many videogamers may find such training and strategies useful as well.

Cz's concept of flow can certainly account for relaxation, and performance. These exist along axes of challenge, and skill (see the diagram).
[[File:File_Challenge_vs_skill_svg_Wikipedia.png|200px|thumb|left|alt text]]
His and other work, also provide first hand accounts which begin to describe flow as a state of unison between body and mind. Other definitions include great concentration, or absorption in an activity at hand.

B's book abounds on many of video games’ experiential aspects. Maybe this is largely subjective (and contrary to what gamification consultants may say), or perhaps there are common aspects of videogames - such as art, music, or kitsch which can appeal (relax, worry, bore, arouse, etc.) broadly.

The general skill requirement of videogames often centres on manipulation of inputs towards an algorithmic end (winning a point, moving an avatar etc.). These inputs consist of embodied activities such as precise, ordered manipulation of buttons, joysticks, or other devices. The activities themselves, are notably similar to the inputs required in the performance of many musical instruments. Furthermore, whatever might be occurring in-game impresses its own 'reading' challenges as well, and imposes strategic challenges, and an embodied demand of quick input reactions. Exercise games are an especially interesting subset of games, which no doubt increase the physical demand of challenge, skill, and perhaps enjoyment as well.

From discussion of players and roles we know that anyone can fill the protagonists' shoes. Gaming communities are starting to become interested in watching and engaging with these players. Consider the growth in popularity of game streaming and tournament broadcasts. Much like athletic, or musical prowess, flow is an ever-present personal state, or quality. Consequently, flow provides equal opportunity for entertainment and (along with some notable social skills and other factors) is capable of drawing a crowd. The old adage says something along the lines of “it’s not important whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game”. Some of the week 3 reading (Nolan & McBride, etc.) helped shed some light on superficial game-based learning, and gamification. Interest in competition may always remain (wins and losses), but what is starting to compete with results for interest, is the players behind the competition, and their own unique “brand” of play. Put simply, audiences are becoming curious, and captivated by ''how'' certain players play.

== Production 3 ==
This week’s production is roughly split into two sections. These are connections between the trials of the hack-a-game game, and the workshop/game design literature; and an extension of the critique of gamification in digital game-based learning (DGBL).

Fullerton’s book outlines some practical considerations for game design. Communication is listed early on, as “the most important skill” (Fullerton 2008, 5) that designers can develop. This rang true in practice, as nearly all of the activities of the game-hacking exercise with the Space Race game focused on communication. In addition to being most prevalent, it was also the most challenging, and rewarding activity. It was largely unstructured, and undocumented. This may have been appropriate for a small group of first-timers, but one does wonder to what degree such communication is ‘organic’ in professional practice. Fullerton also includes a section dedicated to team communication, and lists formal meetings, or less formal (but still organized) ‘scrums’ as good communication structures. Furthermore Fullerton identifies a set of common specifications, or documents being a big part of the design team’s work, and listed it as key to ‘standardizing’ communication (Fullerton 2008, 15). One can certainly imagine the added challenges if in our relatively ‘fluid’ hack of Space Race, the three designers also approached from different ‘angles’ (e.g. education/background, competencies, vocabulary, etc.).

The Design Process of the hack-a-game game trial was similarly fluid, and seems describable by some combination of playercentric, and iterative. In a way, the trial group did not consider player experience early enough in the process – something Fullerton would prefer (Fullerton 2008, 10-11) – but it seemed to emerge through iteration. A good example is when the group discovered they had greatly extended the length of the game, and reactively swapped scoring, for a ‘last-goal-wins’ mechanic. It is possible that the team was rather lucky with the ‘path’ of hacks chosen. Perhaps an initial idea was not so foundational, and thus did not end up pigeon-holing any subsequent ideas (i.e. into a similar theme, mechanic, etc.). Imagining the Process as an infinity of possible hack-decisions at the outset: surely some of these decisions take on a ‘tree-limb’, or fractal form. For example, decision 1, may only allow for a series of 1a,b,c decisions, and precludes additional decisions of 2, 3, … n. Another point to consider as part of the Process, is that this trial of the hack-a-game game involved an analog game, and therefore required little computational literacy. Certain functions, and conditionals were instantiated, and modified in analog – and it is likely that a digital Design Process would be affected by the group’s competency of enacting these (most certainly in speed, or number of possible hack tests) in a digital format.

In transitioning to a discussion of DGBL, there are opinions, research, and policy which exist on a spectrum between full support, or opposition. One of these is the concept of digital natives, and their perceived (yet not wholly proven) skill with digital technologies. Other supportive arguments seem clear-cut but are murky in their own right. Researchers such as diSessa and Wing see that there “is a growing acknowledgement among educational researchers, computer scientists and teachers that “computational thinking” and algorithmic logic ought to be considered a kind of “core literacy”” (Jenson & Droumeva, 2017). Broadly conceived, an algorithm is a process of problem solving. Is there any risk/complication associated with learning computer science principles through gameplay/design ''only'', especially at a young age? Further to this, one might question if lusory attitudes (an important facet of game play, and development) may be coopted for the facilitation of certain curricula. Bernard Suits defines a lusory attitude as “the player’s adoption of the rule-set of a game” (Nolan & McBride 2014, 599). One specific concern is the potential tension (or worse – passivity) which may result between critical thinking (e.g. challenging norms, questioning society, etc.) and the installation of a series of DGBL rule-sets. This is especially concerning given education’s historical mandate of preparing students for future careers, and curricula around ‘making’ with technology that are purportedly built on an “understanding of the ''good things''” (emphasis added) (Thumlert et al. 2018, 705). At times, this has amounted to little more than superficial ‘gamification’, essentially only serving to extend a curricular desire for another form of accounting. Gamification can and has been installed into professional work settings with varying degrees of success, but it is not yet clear what implications may exist for these so-called digital natives who are soon to enter the workforce.

'''References'''

Fullerton (2008). “Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games”. ''Elsevier''

Jenson & Droumeva (2017). “Revisiting the Media Generation: Youth Media Use and Computational Literacy instruction”.
''E-Learning and Digital Media.'' Vol. 14(4), pp. 212-225.

Nolan & McBride (2014). “Beyond Gamification: Reconceptualizing Game Based Learning in Early Childhood Environments.”
''Information, Communication & Society.'' Vol. 17(5), pp. 594-608.

Thumlert et al. (2018). “Learning Through Game Design: A Production Pedagogy”. ''Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Game-Based Learning ECGBL''

== Production 4 ==
Option 2: De-Composing Runescape

Some brief background: Runescape is a popular MMORPG. Roughly 2000 players can be accommodated on a single game world (server), with an instantaneous average of 100,000 active players (MisplacedMe 2019). A players’ first actions consist of modifying the appearance of their avatar ‘character’ and completing a tutorial of the major facets of the game.

The premise of the game is multifaceted (combat, quest completion/puzzle-solving, construction, mini-games etc.) with an underlying economic resource production/management theme. It is set in the realm of Gielinor – best described as a stylized medieval earth that features fantasy elements (think: Martin’s continental setting for the Game of Thrones series, or Tolkien’s setting of Middle Earth).
Implicit in the combat, and resource gathering mechanics is a sense of linear progression from reality-inspired, to fantasy-inspired. This perhaps parallels a model of scientific innovation, ''or'' historical “ages” of production that connote some ‘better’ performance. For example, the earliest accessible metals (bronze or iron) correspond to a low level of combat weapon damage, or armour protection, and resource gathering speed/efficiency. Higher level, better performing metals consist of adamant (‘borrowed’ from mythology, and Marvel comics lore), rune, and dragon (‘proprietary’), to name a few. The association of linear progress with performance/efficiency may reinforce a few pedagogies about innovation (e.g. it always or is only to be found in the future).

The rule sets and systems are conceptually quite simple. They are made complex or dynamic by the interactions (or lack thereof*) with other players or non-player characters.

The primary mechanic is movement. It is constrained to an orthogonal grid within the player’s field of view, and performed through clicking a chosen destination. A pathfinding routine is then called, and the player’s movement is animated. This is one of the earliest remaining ‘foundational’ elements of Runescape and has influenced gameplay in numerous ways. Foremost, it rewards exploration into the unknown – the initial location of the game caters to learning, and low-level play. Furthermore, over time and with practice, players discover how to manipulate pathfinding mechanics, and (more importantly) that of NPCs. A key combat skill (but one that may never be formalized through the tutorial) is the ability to attract and trap an aggressive NPC or player behind obstacles or barriers. This brings to mind Fullerton’s suggestions about playtesting. It is entirely possible that Runescape’s original designer – Andrew Gower envisioned rigid ‘to the death’ combat scenarios (valuing preparation, and strategy). However, player tendencies (e.g. curiosity and exploration) led to a more dynamic conception of strategy, which added flight, and avoidance to fight events. Flexibility and a willingness to adapt have allowed this rather unique tactic to flourish as a somewhat tacit aspect of Runescape culture.

There are no explicit win conditions, save for the narrative-laden Quests that a player may opt to begin. Goals, and win-conditions are largely self-determined. Some view skill mastery as a goal (i.e. “maxing out”), while others may choose to try and maximize their resources, defeat other players in combat, attain certain items, complete quests, play mini-games, or socialize. There is an explicit loss condition when a player loses all of their health points. This results in a ‘respawn’ where all new players enter the game (a relatively safe location), and (depending on the circumstances of their death) possible loss of held items. Other implied ‘losses’ include poor investment, or receiving disciplinary actions (such as mutes, or account bans).
Another important mechanic is the random number generator (RNG) and drop tables. Greater skill accumulation (in combat or resource-gathering skills) results in better position along the mentioned performance/”age” line. However, in order to maintain interest, and/or competitive balance an element of randomness is introduced to most activities via RNG. The RNG-driven drop tables also greatly impact the game economy. That is, it determines the probable amounts of resources and items that ‘enter’ the game through player actions.

One instance of gameplay based on relative isolation (in contrast to interaction) is worth mentioning. The developers noticed a trend emerging (The Runescape Wiki 2014): For whatever reason (added challenge, etc.) players would not engage in trade with others. Instead they would look to ‘perform’ the game under a self-imposed ruleset of self-sufficiency. This led to the official instantiation of the Iron(wo)man game mode, with official restrictions and an accompanying player title.

'''Update'''

The following are some ideas that expand the discussion to include some of the learning content and readings. Concepts about digital games and situated learning/cognition come out via the movement-exploration mechanic of RS. Controlling the avatar character allows for a learning that is "an outcome of the interaction between an individual and the environment or social setting" (Marone, 4). In addition to being a primary driver of narrative, movement and exploration via the player character avatar also produce a hybridization with the player user. This is further supported by other facets of the game such as the extensive customization of avatar aesthetics, which serve to visually connect player and avatar. A nice, combined example of visual, movement-based hybridization is also present in the game in the form of gestures known as emotes. Examples include waving, cheering, thinking or various skill-related emotes. Most emotes can be used for various non-textual communications with other players or NPCs.

Declarative knowledge application (though there are a few examples) recedes into the background of RS for the most part, while procedural knowledge tends to come to the fore.
The tacit movement skills, such as the barrier trapping mentioned above, illustrate a procedural knowledge application. Though it can be communicated, it still is relatively non-declarative. A case of "you know it when you see it". Successful application requires ''performance'', but few probably understand or even know of the underlying mechanics of a pathfinding algorithm. Anecdotally: 'luck' and observation may play a major role as conditions for this type of learning, unless the player has the benefit of social connection with existing players. Still, it is one of those digital skills/activities for which successful performance might be based on a feel, and reflexive response to certain visual cues, rather than adherence to strict instruction.

Relatively recently - developer and community posts began to refer to the RNG's role in the item-drop, or "loot" system (in response to player community curiosity). Shortly after - either out of comedy, ignorance, etc. - players have since coined the phrase "I used up all my RNG" to refer to an instance or series of perceived "bad luck" where RNG is thought to play a part. Regardless of its inaccuracy, this phrase may be grounded in some sort of declarative knowledge about probabilities, yet its use is entirely grounded in procedural knowledge (i.e. prior experience of dynamically determined probable outcomes).
Attempts to make procedural probability knowledge declarative are ongoing both in/outside of the game. Within: developers have released statistical tracking add-ons, that can help a player manage personal probabilistic data. Outwith: community sites (including wikis) attempt to perform the same knowledge gathering - but with it wholly determined (i.e. composed of multiple players' contributed data).

'''References'''

MisplacedMe (2019). “Runescape Player Count by Qtr Hr" Accessed at: http://www.misplaceditems.com/rs_tools/graph/

The Runescape Wiki (2014). "Ironman & Drop Table Reworks" Accessed at: https://runescape.fandom.com/wiki/Update:Ironman_%26_Drop_Table_Reworks

Marone (2016). "Playful Constructivism: Making Sense of Digital Games for Learning and Creativity Through Play, Design, and Participation" ''Journal of Virtual Worlds Research'' Vol. 9(3).

== Production 5 ==
Opt. 2: Play/Games definition a la H & C + Investigation via a Game

Personally, my favorite concept which represents play is that its nature cannot be determined and/or explained through scientific principles, and modes of investigation. Perhaps related, is play’s lack of moral function (Huizinga, 102). Play is also primary. I use primary in the sense of cognitive, but also evolutionary development in the same spirit as when Huizinga and Caillois refer to young children and animals. Primary often connotes an inferiority relative to the more-developed (not a sentiment I agree with mind you, i.e. “simple is hard”; “K.I.S.S.”; etc.). The notion of more-developed (anti-play) manifests as serious, daily-life, or boring types of activities. Usually these activities (even in complex examples like serious play) hinge on some aspect of society, or culture (e.g. economy, social status/class, etc.). I recall reading some research – I cannot remember the exact field, but perhaps it was psychology – that put forth an interesting finding. That is that biological adults needing to perform serious, and “adult” activities (and more importantly, to be ''seen performing'' these activities) indicates a fundamentally childish characteristic, or desire. Note: that this extension of play vs. seriousness includes this research not as an indictment of adult-serious, or play-childish executive function. It is more meant to question the performativity of play vs. seriousness, and the rigid linear model that is always applied to what is clearly a subjective spectrum composed of multiple factors such as enjoyment, and utility. Consider that some experience a genuinely dizzying vertigo from the play of effective accounting. Some approach it as a mimetic activity that straddles play/the serious. Yet some others treat it as an entirely boring, serious activity.
Thus Caillois’ work is helpful as a framework for what might be termed ''applications of play''. Furthermore, these applications are self- or co-determined expressions. Obviously this definition requires additional research, and distillation, and may be best openly presented as an ongoing exercise.

Therefore: 
Play is a primary application of subjective, or ''labile'' expression. It is devoid of moral function, and relatively slippery for analysis by systematic, rational modes of enquiry.

The game I will test this definition upon, is Halo: Reach (HR). The game features a variety of ludus and paidia according to various modes of play. There a number of game modes ranging from the story-driven campaign, to survival scenarios, to custom, and competitive multiplayer. I will explore some of the game mechanics, and coded preferences for subjective expression which can be controlled by a player to some extent. The best “in” to these mechanics is through HR’s multiplayer-mode “matchmaking” system. In addition to persistent local area network (LAN) multiplayer, HR is the third installment of the franchise which features online competitive/co-operative game play. In this installment, players are able to tailor their probable player network for the next game they join, based on four qualities under the banner of ‘Psych Profile’: 
Chattiness. Binary option for preference of chatty, or quiet teammates. 
Motivation. Binary option for preference of winning, or good-time seeking teammates. 
Teamwork. Binary option for preference of team player, or lone wolf teammates. 
Tone. Binary option for preference of rowdy, or polite chatting teammates. 

Multiplayer games offer various outlets for social expression, and rules and social controls (such as the psych profile) serve to introduce lability and customization of the player experience. While being a very play-centric concept, it also hits on the above definition’s caveat of lack of moral function. HR’s social controls remove certain groups of players. This brings to mind exclusionary practices, which are certainly prevalent in games of all types, and often made explicit in the case of childrens’ turbulent and lusory attitudes to preference setting. It is not uncommon to hear of games which restrict participation from the outset (or even during play) for apt, or arbitrary reasons. For example, potential players may be excluded from a game for reasons of social status, their hygienic perception, so-called “competitive balance”, or any other indicator. In HR social controls are based on indicators which are quantified and referred to as metrics. The social control condition of play thus shifts from being based in public personal/co-determined subjective opinion, or objective truths – to a digital environment that enforces social relations in a private, probabilistic manner.

It is perhaps ironic, that the campaign narrative, which is structured around a variety of individual team-member play styles does not allow for the same dynamic preference setting as the multiplayer match-making experience. One may engage in prescribed teamwork-, or ‘lone-wolf-’ style campaign missions, but can rarely break the mould, or effect AI/NPC social traits such as chattiness or motivation. In addition to network customization, HR offers play as a medium for subjective expression by (an albeit limited) customization of the player’s multiplayer avatar. These customizations effect many forms of expression such as gender, voice (patterned after some campaign characters) as well as the player’s armour form, colour, and markings. Furthermore, customizations can include capabilities which affect the competitive quality or style of play. A player may select one default special ability or swap them at will in certain games modes. This leads to a relatively unknown element in multiplayer matches in terms of specific ability distribution. This is perhaps the developers’ best effort at introducing a dynamic means of expression which varies based on different interactions with the game as a system.

An interesting claim provided in the explanation of multiplayer network settings is that (in all cases): “changing preferred [setting] will not affect search times.” This is perhaps an indication of the contemporary developer wisdom which suggests that players value a gaming experience with little down-time between games/rounds. If the disclaimer is accepted as true, it also may indicate that the valuation of speed exceeds that of these various social qualities.

Huizinga (1955). “Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Homo Ludens) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via Beacon Press.''

Caillois (1961). “The Definition of Play and The Classification of Games”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Man, Play and Games) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via University of Illinois Press''

== Production 7 ==
<gallery mode=packed-hover>
File:Reach-Farmhouse.jpg|Fig. 1- Reach Farmhouse
File:Reach-Turbines.jpg|Fig. 2- Rural Wind Turbines
File:Caracalla park(Tacitus Halopedia).jpg|Fig. 3- Caracalla Park - a good setting to harvest wind on New Alexandria's outskirts
</gallery>

This production looks to build on concepts of aesthetics, the subaltern and future imaginaries in the cultural studies of videogames. These include: future imaginaries surrounding energy security, and the aesthetics of future, urban, military, or rural renewable energy technology. This work will also consider the subsequent effects of: perceived canonical inconsistency and; affect (e.g. valorization, frustration, etc.) resulting from narrative. The Halo franchise will be used to situate the former, and the game Halo: Reach, for the Xbox360 will be used as a lens to explore the remaining concepts through its narrative-laden campaign mode. A novel contribution is made at the end of the discussion of futurism aesthetics. This is that inconsistent experimentation with a future imaginary aesthetic, produces a specific, visual, ''tokenism''.

Halo: Reach’s opening level renders several small wind-energy harvesters across the landscape of what appears to be a dedicated farming planet (named Reach). This is familiar territory, as It is through this representation of a future setting that persuasion and direct engagement challenges are bypassed (Abraham 2018). Abraham’s work is based on the game ARMA 3, as an island setting which represented a number of large, centralized renewable energy facilities and systems (solar arrays, wind farms, etc.). One can argue that in reality, from a functional standpoint: rural communities, and – more specifically – household units are the setting for the most effective ''present'' implementations of renewable energy generation. Certainly, such units have been a major factor in the genesis, and growth in popularity of such technologies for pragmatic factors such as distance/inefficiency in traditional access of centralized systems, spatial seclusion, etc. Distributed, smaller-scale implementation such as on Reach is just as likely (if not more so) a scenario for near-future energy generation capacities, relative to large-scale facilities.

It is unclear whether some of Reach’s rural inhabitants (mostly unencountered due to evacuation) are permanent settlers, or if they are transient labourers in agriculture, or resource extraction. Though the farms, and shipping hubs portray technological sophistication/futurism, secure in their access to energy, they also communicate humble pragmatism. Structures make use of the natural landscape, rarely appearing out of place, and only seemingly connected by informal infrastructure such as dirt roads [see gallery figure 1]. This is reinforced by contrast with the introduction of an investigating Spartan team, their military technology at the fore. This technology includes vehicles and weapons which propel due to the work of diegetic, combustion-based mechanisms. Later in the game, Reach is revealed to have areas with more advanced industries and infrastructure, such as ship-building facilities, titanium mines, and large cities (like New Alexandria). Renewable energy seems fine for activities like farming or powering small rural dwellings, but strictly political-economic applications (such as military, or city operations) do not make overt use of this kind of energy. A colonial otherness thus contributes to the perception of a renewable energy tokenism. Simply defined: tokenism is a perfunctory or symbolic effort. Often it refers to instances of racialism and efforts to portray equality. It seems that tokenism is the antithesis, or saboteur of Ian Bogost’s & Mary Flanagan’s ideas of subversive video games. It is an act of appeasement. Generally, tokenism equates to some new venture, but ultimately has no intention to achieve disruption or transformative effects of any significance, resulting in preservation of the status quo. 
Renewable energy tokenism pervades due to the omission of meaningful representations of military, or city-scale applications. There is a definite otherness to the rural treatment of renewable energy, which is somehow unable (or unwilling) to translate to urban settings – the traditional site of colonial power. Donald Schön states that “experiments should not “confirm” and “answer” to a challenge but affirm that challenge”. He also goes on to relate that computer science (game design included) is turning to a model of continuous dialogue between values and practice (Schön 1983). The modeling of futuristic, vertically-oriented wind turbine assets [see gallery figure 2] is valuable as an experiment of exposure to an imagined energy future. Designers do not need to necessarily valorize renewable energy, or a specific technology. However, in order to be a successful experiment, Halo: Reach’s designers require dialogue with a greater treatment of the scientific principles of experimental procedure. The enactment of tenets such as rigorous application, and adequate sampling, throughout the design of Halo: Reach would give the renewable energy imaginary its proper due.

Energy security is a particularly troubling topic when Halo: Reach is viewed as a prequel in the Halo franchise, as this was the first installment to represent renewable energy generation mechanisms in any detail. The canon of renewables in the franchise (used in the all-encompassing sense of zeitgeist, or orthodoxy) is thus ''fragmented''. Audiences will view the omission of renewables (in chronologically earlier releases) as a loss of momentum for the fictional renewable energy industry/market. Economic inflections are common in video games. Baerg says that the procedural rhetoric of video games supports an economically inflected rationality behind the making of choices (Baerg 2009), and the example of Reach perhaps represents an economic-narrative element. Mukherjee made use of the concept of canon toward his definition of sub-altern amid postcolonial undertones in video games. Ultimately, subaltern is a concept concerned with writing history from below, but it often lacks a voice to articulate itself. This facility of articulation involves exercise of any number of powers such as political, social, or economic (Mukherjee 2018). Thus as a perceived element that was “phased out” in chronological Halo canon, renewable energy generation is made subaltern. From Reach to the next installment, questions arise about renewables’ economic, political, and/or social viability/tenability. The sort of precedence offered by a prequel takes on features of an articulation strategy known as the ''single story'' (SS). This is a narrative device that has supported colonial and postcolonial efforts, by retaining power and limiting articulation of native cultural voice (Adichie 2009). The Reach prequel thus imposes a narrative that shapes (and possibly changes) thoughts and beliefs about the overall canon. 
Even throughout a playthrough of Reach one questions renewables’ compatibility with urban-futurist aesthetics, or whether it is politically or economically scalable to city-, or military-scale use. The aesthetics of New Alexandria are affective. One can imagine living ''somewhere in these cities'', making use of its many interconnected public squares, and plazas. They communicate clean minimalism, and the urban planning nears complete integration, but there is also tremendous opacity. One cannot glean (from the exterior) the program, or purpose of any individual building or cluster – including its energy need, or potential sources [see gallery figure 3]. The possible answer to the questions one develops about renewables (though never fully settled) is ever-present in the negative. This is performed by visible omission relative to the game’s opening experience with contrasting rural applications.
Far more extreme would be the gamer that extrapolates and attributes the narrative of the fall of Reach to some lack of preparedness, capability, or force associated with the presence or use of renewables. The player’s perspective as a Spartan that is equipped with gas-powered technology performs a valorization operation, and presents renewables as a weak, or ineffectual energy source by contrast. Keep in mind that Reach represented the first such engagement with the Covenant (one of the main enemy forces) in earth-controlled space and runs on an emotional narrative. The campaign always ends as an integrated cutscene with the player controlling the last remaining Spartan as the planet is ‘glassed’ by the victorious Covenant. Irrational responses and extreme associations therefore are to be expected. These sorts of classification of narrative represent an in for discussion of an interesting concept that is situated between climate science and urban planning. This concept is defensible drama (DD). In DD, emotional response is valued as an input toward personal behavioural, and collective change. Climate change simulations, and other rendered representations are situated against a backdrop of local contexts and are used to elicit the emotional response (Sheppard et al. 2008). DD represents an attempt to navigate a specific group-singular narrative but can also be perceived as single story articulation. Again, science and experimental rigor act as ‘fail-safes’ to concerns about this type of representation’s objectivity, accuracy, and ethical concerns.

'''References'''

Abraham (2018). “Video Game Visions of Climate Futures: ARMA 3 and Implications for Games and Persuasion” Games and Culture Vol. 13(1), pp. 71-91.

Adichie (2009). “The Danger of a Single Story” TedGlobal. Accessed at: https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story

Baerg (2009). “Governmentality, Neoliberalism, and the Digital Game” Symploke Vol. 17, pp. 115–127.

Mukherjee (2018). “Playing Subaltern” Games and Culture Vol. 13(5), pp. 504-520.

Schön (1983). “Reflective Practice”. Basic Books New York

Sheppard (2008). “Can Visualisation Save the World? - Lessons for Landscape Architects from Visualizing Local Climate Change”. Accessed at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255570495_Can_Visualisation_Save_the_World_-_Lessons_for_Landscape_Architects_from_Visualizing_Local_Climate_Change

== Meta-Reading Notes ==
Coming soon (working on digitization)...

== Other Content ==
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTOXDnX-HA Edmund's Game Proposal 7/2/2019]

(Forgot to mention '''Possible tools!''')

RPGmaker: for easy/built-in item, or resource manager

Unity: 3D/more visual detail, agent pathfinding (for if a Pikmin-style game)

'''Reference Links:'''

[https://www.catan.com/game/catan-scenarios-oil-springs Catan OilSprings Expansion]

[https://www.pcgamesn.com/hellblade-senuas-sacrifice/hellblade-documentary Hellblade Article]

== My UserPage ==
[https://www.refugeesrespond.org/dadaabwikimedia/index.php?title=User:Edmund]

Edmund's Page

2019-04-04T21:14:31Z

Edmund: /* Production 7 */

== Production 2 ==

Flow was mentioned a few times throughout Bogost’s book. Having already read some work on the topic of flow, I felt it would be useful to dedicate a separate chapter to its coverage. Bogost referenced an important work on flow by Csikszentmihalyi, and used the term in sections dealing with relaxation, and to a lesser degree in the 'Music' and 'Transit' sections. The latter's mention was albeit, more likely based on a logistical definition such as when referring to traffic rates and volumes of people or goods.

B’s ‘Music’ section, however, is a useful “in” to understanding flow due to its emphasis on timing, and various embodiments. This is supported in athletic, and musical performance literature which espouses the benefits of flow-like states, and recommends rhythmic breathing, and other auditory devices. Many videogamers may find such training and strategies useful as well.

Cz's concept of flow can certainly account for relaxation, and performance. These exist along axes of challenge, and skill (see the diagram).
[[File:File_Challenge_vs_skill_svg_Wikipedia.png|200px|thumb|left|alt text]]
His and other work, also provide first hand accounts which begin to describe flow as a state of unison between body and mind. Other definitions include great concentration, or absorption in an activity at hand.

B's book abounds on many of video games’ experiential aspects. Maybe this is largely subjective (and contrary to what gamification consultants may say), or perhaps there are common aspects of videogames - such as art, music, or kitsch which can appeal (relax, worry, bore, arouse, etc.) broadly.

The general skill requirement of videogames often centres on manipulation of inputs towards an algorithmic end (winning a point, moving an avatar etc.). These inputs consist of embodied activities such as precise, ordered manipulation of buttons, joysticks, or other devices. The activities themselves, are notably similar to the inputs required in the performance of many musical instruments. Furthermore, whatever might be occurring in-game impresses its own 'reading' challenges as well, and imposes strategic challenges, and an embodied demand of quick input reactions. Exercise games are an especially interesting subset of games, which no doubt increase the physical demand of challenge, skill, and perhaps enjoyment as well.

From discussion of players and roles we know that anyone can fill the protagonists' shoes. Gaming communities are starting to become interested in watching and engaging with these players. Consider the growth in popularity of game streaming and tournament broadcasts. Much like athletic, or musical prowess, flow is an ever-present personal state, or quality. Consequently, flow provides equal opportunity for entertainment and (along with some notable social skills and other factors) is capable of drawing a crowd. The old adage says something along the lines of “it’s not important whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game”. Some of the week 3 reading (Nolan & McBride, etc.) helped shed some light on superficial game-based learning, and gamification. Interest in competition may always remain (wins and losses), but what is starting to compete with results for interest, is the players behind the competition, and their own unique “brand” of play. Put simply, audiences are becoming curious, and captivated by ''how'' certain players play.

== Production 3 ==
This week’s production is roughly split into two sections. These are connections between the trials of the hack-a-game game, and the workshop/game design literature; and an extension of the critique of gamification in digital game-based learning (DGBL).

Fullerton’s book outlines some practical considerations for game design. Communication is listed early on, as “the most important skill” (Fullerton 2008, 5) that designers can develop. This rang true in practice, as nearly all of the activities of the game-hacking exercise with the Space Race game focused on communication. In addition to being most prevalent, it was also the most challenging, and rewarding activity. It was largely unstructured, and undocumented. This may have been appropriate for a small group of first-timers, but one does wonder to what degree such communication is ‘organic’ in professional practice. Fullerton also includes a section dedicated to team communication, and lists formal meetings, or less formal (but still organized) ‘scrums’ as good communication structures. Furthermore Fullerton identifies a set of common specifications, or documents being a big part of the design team’s work, and listed it as key to ‘standardizing’ communication (Fullerton 2008, 15). One can certainly imagine the added challenges if in our relatively ‘fluid’ hack of Space Race, the three designers also approached from different ‘angles’ (e.g. education/background, competencies, vocabulary, etc.).

The Design Process of the hack-a-game game trial was similarly fluid, and seems describable by some combination of playercentric, and iterative. In a way, the trial group did not consider player experience early enough in the process – something Fullerton would prefer (Fullerton 2008, 10-11) – but it seemed to emerge through iteration. A good example is when the group discovered they had greatly extended the length of the game, and reactively swapped scoring, for a ‘last-goal-wins’ mechanic. It is possible that the team was rather lucky with the ‘path’ of hacks chosen. Perhaps an initial idea was not so foundational, and thus did not end up pigeon-holing any subsequent ideas (i.e. into a similar theme, mechanic, etc.). Imagining the Process as an infinity of possible hack-decisions at the outset: surely some of these decisions take on a ‘tree-limb’, or fractal form. For example, decision 1, may only allow for a series of 1a,b,c decisions, and precludes additional decisions of 2, 3, … n. Another point to consider as part of the Process, is that this trial of the hack-a-game game involved an analog game, and therefore required little computational literacy. Certain functions, and conditionals were instantiated, and modified in analog – and it is likely that a digital Design Process would be affected by the group’s competency of enacting these (most certainly in speed, or number of possible hack tests) in a digital format.

In transitioning to a discussion of DGBL, there are opinions, research, and policy which exist on a spectrum between full support, or opposition. One of these is the concept of digital natives, and their perceived (yet not wholly proven) skill with digital technologies. Other supportive arguments seem clear-cut but are murky in their own right. Researchers such as diSessa and Wing see that there “is a growing acknowledgement among educational researchers, computer scientists and teachers that “computational thinking” and algorithmic logic ought to be considered a kind of “core literacy”” (Jenson & Droumeva, 2017). Broadly conceived, an algorithm is a process of problem solving. Is there any risk/complication associated with learning computer science principles through gameplay/design ''only'', especially at a young age? Further to this, one might question if lusory attitudes (an important facet of game play, and development) may be coopted for the facilitation of certain curricula. Bernard Suits defines a lusory attitude as “the player’s adoption of the rule-set of a game” (Nolan & McBride 2014, 599). One specific concern is the potential tension (or worse – passivity) which may result between critical thinking (e.g. challenging norms, questioning society, etc.) and the installation of a series of DGBL rule-sets. This is especially concerning given education’s historical mandate of preparing students for future careers, and curricula around ‘making’ with technology that are purportedly built on an “understanding of the ''good things''” (emphasis added) (Thumlert et al. 2018, 705). At times, this has amounted to little more than superficial ‘gamification’, essentially only serving to extend a curricular desire for another form of accounting. Gamification can and has been installed into professional work settings with varying degrees of success, but it is not yet clear what implications may exist for these so-called digital natives who are soon to enter the workforce.

'''References'''

Fullerton (2008). “Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games”. ''Elsevier''

Jenson & Droumeva (2017). “Revisiting the Media Generation: Youth Media Use and Computational Literacy instruction”.
''E-Learning and Digital Media.'' Vol. 14(4), pp. 212-225.

Nolan & McBride (2014). “Beyond Gamification: Reconceptualizing Game Based Learning in Early Childhood Environments.”
''Information, Communication & Society.'' Vol. 17(5), pp. 594-608.

Thumlert et al. (2018). “Learning Through Game Design: A Production Pedagogy”. ''Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Game-Based Learning ECGBL''

== Production 4 ==
Option 2: De-Composing Runescape

Some brief background: Runescape is a popular MMORPG. Roughly 2000 players can be accommodated on a single game world (server), with an instantaneous average of 100,000 active players (MisplacedMe 2019). A players’ first actions consist of modifying the appearance of their avatar ‘character’ and completing a tutorial of the major facets of the game.

The premise of the game is multifaceted (combat, quest completion/puzzle-solving, construction, mini-games etc.) with an underlying economic resource production/management theme. It is set in the realm of Gielinor – best described as a stylized medieval earth that features fantasy elements (think: Martin’s continental setting for the Game of Thrones series, or Tolkien’s setting of Middle Earth).
Implicit in the combat, and resource gathering mechanics is a sense of linear progression from reality-inspired, to fantasy-inspired. This perhaps parallels a model of scientific innovation, ''or'' historical “ages” of production that connote some ‘better’ performance. For example, the earliest accessible metals (bronze or iron) correspond to a low level of combat weapon damage, or armour protection, and resource gathering speed/efficiency. Higher level, better performing metals consist of adamant (‘borrowed’ from mythology, and Marvel comics lore), rune, and dragon (‘proprietary’), to name a few. The association of linear progress with performance/efficiency may reinforce a few pedagogies about innovation (e.g. it always or is only to be found in the future).

The rule sets and systems are conceptually quite simple. They are made complex or dynamic by the interactions (or lack thereof*) with other players or non-player characters.

The primary mechanic is movement. It is constrained to an orthogonal grid within the player’s field of view, and performed through clicking a chosen destination. A pathfinding routine is then called, and the player’s movement is animated. This is one of the earliest remaining ‘foundational’ elements of Runescape and has influenced gameplay in numerous ways. Foremost, it rewards exploration into the unknown – the initial location of the game caters to learning, and low-level play. Furthermore, over time and with practice, players discover how to manipulate pathfinding mechanics, and (more importantly) that of NPCs. A key combat skill (but one that may never be formalized through the tutorial) is the ability to attract and trap an aggressive NPC or player behind obstacles or barriers. This brings to mind Fullerton’s suggestions about playtesting. It is entirely possible that Runescape’s original designer – Andrew Gower envisioned rigid ‘to the death’ combat scenarios (valuing preparation, and strategy). However, player tendencies (e.g. curiosity and exploration) led to a more dynamic conception of strategy, which added flight, and avoidance to fight events. Flexibility and a willingness to adapt have allowed this rather unique tactic to flourish as a somewhat tacit aspect of Runescape culture.

There are no explicit win conditions, save for the narrative-laden Quests that a player may opt to begin. Goals, and win-conditions are largely self-determined. Some view skill mastery as a goal (i.e. “maxing out”), while others may choose to try and maximize their resources, defeat other players in combat, attain certain items, complete quests, play mini-games, or socialize. There is an explicit loss condition when a player loses all of their health points. This results in a ‘respawn’ where all new players enter the game (a relatively safe location), and (depending on the circumstances of their death) possible loss of held items. Other implied ‘losses’ include poor investment, or receiving disciplinary actions (such as mutes, or account bans).
Another important mechanic is the random number generator (RNG) and drop tables. Greater skill accumulation (in combat or resource-gathering skills) results in better position along the mentioned performance/”age” line. However, in order to maintain interest, and/or competitive balance an element of randomness is introduced to most activities via RNG. The RNG-driven drop tables also greatly impact the game economy. That is, it determines the probable amounts of resources and items that ‘enter’ the game through player actions.

One instance of gameplay based on relative isolation (in contrast to interaction) is worth mentioning. The developers noticed a trend emerging (The Runescape Wiki 2014): For whatever reason (added challenge, etc.) players would not engage in trade with others. Instead they would look to ‘perform’ the game under a self-imposed ruleset of self-sufficiency. This led to the official instantiation of the Iron(wo)man game mode, with official restrictions and an accompanying player title.

'''Update'''

The following are some ideas that expand the discussion to include some of the learning content and readings. Concepts about digital games and situated learning/cognition come out via the movement-exploration mechanic of RS. Controlling the avatar character allows for a learning that is "an outcome of the interaction between an individual and the environment or social setting" (Marone, 4). In addition to being a primary driver of narrative, movement and exploration via the player character avatar also produce a hybridization with the player user. This is further supported by other facets of the game such as the extensive customization of avatar aesthetics, which serve to visually connect player and avatar. A nice, combined example of visual, movement-based hybridization is also present in the game in the form of gestures known as emotes. Examples include waving, cheering, thinking or various skill-related emotes. Most emotes can be used for various non-textual communications with other players or NPCs.

Declarative knowledge application (though there are a few examples) recedes into the background of RS for the most part, while procedural knowledge tends to come to the fore.
The tacit movement skills, such as the barrier trapping mentioned above, illustrate a procedural knowledge application. Though it can be communicated, it still is relatively non-declarative. A case of "you know it when you see it". Successful application requires ''performance'', but few probably understand or even know of the underlying mechanics of a pathfinding algorithm. Anecdotally: 'luck' and observation may play a major role as conditions for this type of learning, unless the player has the benefit of social connection with existing players. Still, it is one of those digital skills/activities for which successful performance might be based on a feel, and reflexive response to certain visual cues, rather than adherence to strict instruction.

Relatively recently - developer and community posts began to refer to the RNG's role in the item-drop, or "loot" system (in response to player community curiosity). Shortly after - either out of comedy, ignorance, etc. - players have since coined the phrase "I used up all my RNG" to refer to an instance or series of perceived "bad luck" where RNG is thought to play a part. Regardless of its inaccuracy, this phrase may be grounded in some sort of declarative knowledge about probabilities, yet its use is entirely grounded in procedural knowledge (i.e. prior experience of dynamically determined probable outcomes).
Attempts to make procedural probability knowledge declarative are ongoing both in/outside of the game. Within: developers have released statistical tracking add-ons, that can help a player manage personal probabilistic data. Outwith: community sites (including wikis) attempt to perform the same knowledge gathering - but with it wholly determined (i.e. composed of multiple players' contributed data).

'''References'''

MisplacedMe (2019). “Runescape Player Count by Qtr Hr" Accessed at: http://www.misplaceditems.com/rs_tools/graph/

The Runescape Wiki (2014). "Ironman & Drop Table Reworks" Accessed at: https://runescape.fandom.com/wiki/Update:Ironman_%26_Drop_Table_Reworks

Marone (2016). "Playful Constructivism: Making Sense of Digital Games for Learning and Creativity Through Play, Design, and Participation" ''Journal of Virtual Worlds Research'' Vol. 9(3).

== Production 5 ==
Opt. 2: Play/Games definition a la H & C + Investigation via a Game

Personally, my favorite concept which represents play is that its nature cannot be determined and/or explained through scientific principles, and modes of investigation. Perhaps related, is play’s lack of moral function (Huizinga, 102). Play is also primary. I use primary in the sense of cognitive, but also evolutionary development in the same spirit as when Huizinga and Caillois refer to young children and animals. Primary often connotes an inferiority relative to the more-developed (not a sentiment I agree with mind you, i.e. “simple is hard”; “K.I.S.S.”; etc.). The notion of more-developed (anti-play) manifests as serious, daily-life, or boring types of activities. Usually these activities (even in complex examples like serious play) hinge on some aspect of society, or culture (e.g. economy, social status/class, etc.). I recall reading some research – I cannot remember the exact field, but perhaps it was psychology – that put forth an interesting finding. That is that biological adults needing to perform serious, and “adult” activities (and more importantly, to be ''seen performing'' these activities) indicates a fundamentally childish characteristic, or desire. Note: that this extension of play vs. seriousness includes this research not as an indictment of adult-serious, or play-childish executive function. It is more meant to question the performativity of play vs. seriousness, and the rigid linear model that is always applied to what is clearly a subjective spectrum composed of multiple factors such as enjoyment, and utility. Consider that some experience a genuinely dizzying vertigo from the play of effective accounting. Some approach it as a mimetic activity that straddles play/the serious. Yet some others treat it as an entirely boring, serious activity.
Thus Caillois’ work is helpful as a framework for what might be termed ''applications of play''. Furthermore, these applications are self- or co-determined expressions. Obviously this definition requires additional research, and distillation, and may be best openly presented as an ongoing exercise.

Therefore: 
Play is a primary application of subjective, or ''labile'' expression. It is devoid of moral function, and relatively slippery for analysis by systematic, rational modes of enquiry.

The game I will test this definition upon, is Halo: Reach (HR). The game features a variety of ludus and paidia according to various modes of play. There a number of game modes ranging from the story-driven campaign, to survival scenarios, to custom, and competitive multiplayer. I will explore some of the game mechanics, and coded preferences for subjective expression which can be controlled by a player to some extent. The best “in” to these mechanics is through HR’s multiplayer-mode “matchmaking” system. In addition to persistent local area network (LAN) multiplayer, HR is the third installment of the franchise which features online competitive/co-operative game play. In this installment, players are able to tailor their probable player network for the next game they join, based on four qualities under the banner of ‘Psych Profile’: 
Chattiness. Binary option for preference of chatty, or quiet teammates. 
Motivation. Binary option for preference of winning, or good-time seeking teammates. 
Teamwork. Binary option for preference of team player, or lone wolf teammates. 
Tone. Binary option for preference of rowdy, or polite chatting teammates. 

Multiplayer games offer various outlets for social expression, and rules and social controls (such as the psych profile) serve to introduce lability and customization of the player experience. While being a very play-centric concept, it also hits on the above definition’s caveat of lack of moral function. HR’s social controls remove certain groups of players. This brings to mind exclusionary practices, which are certainly prevalent in games of all types, and often made explicit in the case of childrens’ turbulent and lusory attitudes to preference setting. It is not uncommon to hear of games which restrict participation from the outset (or even during play) for apt, or arbitrary reasons. For example, potential players may be excluded from a game for reasons of social status, their hygienic perception, so-called “competitive balance”, or any other indicator. In HR social controls are based on indicators which are quantified and referred to as metrics. The social control condition of play thus shifts from being based in public personal/co-determined subjective opinion, or objective truths – to a digital environment that enforces social relations in a private, probabilistic manner.

It is perhaps ironic, that the campaign narrative, which is structured around a variety of individual team-member play styles does not allow for the same dynamic preference setting as the multiplayer match-making experience. One may engage in prescribed teamwork-, or ‘lone-wolf-’ style campaign missions, but can rarely break the mould, or effect AI/NPC social traits such as chattiness or motivation. In addition to network customization, HR offers play as a medium for subjective expression by (an albeit limited) customization of the player’s multiplayer avatar. These customizations effect many forms of expression such as gender, voice (patterned after some campaign characters) as well as the player’s armour form, colour, and markings. Furthermore, customizations can include capabilities which affect the competitive quality or style of play. A player may select one default special ability or swap them at will in certain games modes. This leads to a relatively unknown element in multiplayer matches in terms of specific ability distribution. This is perhaps the developers’ best effort at introducing a dynamic means of expression which varies based on different interactions with the game as a system.

An interesting claim provided in the explanation of multiplayer network settings is that (in all cases): “changing preferred [setting] will not affect search times.” This is perhaps an indication of the contemporary developer wisdom which suggests that players value a gaming experience with little down-time between games/rounds. If the disclaimer is accepted as true, it also may indicate that the valuation of speed exceeds that of these various social qualities.

Huizinga (1955). “Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Homo Ludens) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via Beacon Press.''

Caillois (1961). “The Definition of Play and The Classification of Games”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Man, Play and Games) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via University of Illinois Press''

== Production 7 ==
<gallery mode=packed-hover>
File:Reach-Farmhouse.jpg|Fig. 1- Reach Farmhouse
File:Reach-Turbines.jpg|Fig. 2- Rural Wind Turbines
File:Caracalla park(Tacitus Halopedia).jpg|Fig. 3- Caracalla Park - a good setting to harvest wind on New Alexandria's outskirts
</gallery>

This production looks to build on concepts of aesthetics, the subaltern and future imaginaries in the cultural studies of videogames. These include: future imaginaries surrounding energy security, and the aesthetics of future, urban, military, or rural renewable energy technology. This work will also consider the subsequent effects of: perceived canonical inconsistency and; affect (e.g. valorization, frustration, etc.) resulting from narrative. The Halo franchise will be used to situate the former, and the game Halo: Reach, for the Xbox360 will be used as a lens to explore the remaining concepts through its narrative-laden campaign mode. A novel contribution is made at the end of the discussion of futurism aesthetics. This is that inconsistent experimentation with a future imaginary aesthetic, produces a specific, visual, ''tokenism''.

Halo: Reach’s opening level renders several small wind-energy harvesters across the landscape of what appears to be a dedicated farming planet (named Reach). This is familiar territory, as It is through this representation of a future setting that persuasion and direct engagement challenges are bypassed (Abraham 2018). Abraham’s work is based on the game ARMA 3, as an island setting which represented a number of large, centralized renewable energy facilities and systems (solar arrays, wind farms, etc.). One can argue that in reality, from a functional standpoint: rural communities, and – more specifically – household units are the setting for the most effective ''present'' implementations of renewable energy generation. Certainly, such units have been a major factor in the genesis, and growth in popularity of such technologies for pragmatic factors such as distance/inefficiency in traditional access of centralized systems, spatial seclusion, etc. Distributed, smaller-scale implementation such as on Reach is just as likely (if not more so) a scenario for near-future energy generation capacities, relative to large-scale facilities.

It is unclear whether some of Reach’s rural inhabitants (mostly unencountered due to evacuation) are permanent settlers, or if they are transient labourers in agriculture, or resource extraction. Though the farms, and shipping hubs portray technological sophistication/futurism, secure in their access to energy, they also communicate humble pragmatism. Structures make use of the natural landscape, rarely appearing out of place, and only seemingly connected by informal infrastructure such as dirt roads [see gallery figure 1]. This is reinforced by contrast with the introduction of an investigating Spartan team, their military technology at the fore. This technology includes vehicles and weapons which propel due to the work of diegetic, combustion-based mechanisms. Later in the game, Reach is revealed to have areas with more advanced industries and infrastructure, such as ship-building facilities, titanium mines, and large cities (like New Alexandria). Renewable energy seems fine for activities like farming or powering small rural dwellings, but strictly political-economic applications (such as military, or city operations) do not make overt use of this kind of energy. A colonial otherness thus contributes to the perception of a renewable energy tokenism. Simply defined: tokenism is a perfunctory or symbolic effort. Often it refers to instances of racialism and efforts to portray equality. It seems that tokenism is the antithesis, or saboteur of Ian Bogost’s & Mary Flanagan’s ideas of subversive video games. Generally, tokenism equates to some new venture, but ultimately plans not to achieve disruption or transformative effects of any significance, resulting in preservation of the status quo. 
Renewable energy tokenism pervades due to the omission of meaningful representations of military, or city-scale applications. There is a definite otherness to the rural treatment of renewable energy, which is somehow unable (or unwilling) to translate to urban settings – the traditional site of colonial power. Donald Schön states that “experiments should not “confirm” and “answer” to a challenge but affirm that challenge”. He also goes on to relate that computer science (game design included) is turning to a model of continuous dialogue between values and practice (Schön 1983). The modeling of futuristic, vertically-oriented wind turbines assets [see gallery figure 2] is valuable as an experiment of exposure to an imagined energy future. Designers do not need to necessarily valorize renewable energy, or a specific technology. However, in order to be a successful experiment, Halo: Reach’s designers require dialogue with a greater treatment of the scientific principles of experimental procedure. The enactment of tenets such as rigorous application, and adequate sampling, throughout the design of Halo: Reach would give the renewable energy imaginary its proper due.

Energy security is a particularly troubling topic when Reach is viewed as a prequel in the Halo franchise, as this was the first installment to represent renewable energy generation mechanisms in any detail. The canon of renewables in the franchise (used in the all-encompassing sense of zeitgeist, or orthodoxy) is thus fragmented. Audiences will view the omission of renewables (in chronologically earlier releases) as a loss of momentum for the fictional renewable energy industry/market. Economic inflections are common in video games. Baerg says that the procedural rhetoric of video games supports an economically inflected rationality behind the making of choices (Baerg 2009), and the example of Reach perhaps represents an economic-narrative element. Mukherjee made use of the concept of canon toward his definition of sub-altern amid postcolonial undertones in video games. Ultimately, subaltern is a concept concerned with writing history from below, but it often lacks a voice to articulate itself. This facility of articulation involves exercise of any number of powers such as political, social, or economic (Mukherjee 2018). Thus as a perceived element that was “phased out” in chronological Halo canon, renewable energy generation is made subaltern. From Reach to the next installment, questions arise about renewables’ economic, political, and/or social viability/tenability. The sort of precedence offered by a prequel takes on features of an articulation strategy known as the single story (SS). This is a narrative device that has supported colonial and postcolonial efforts, by retaining power and limiting articulation of native cultural voice (Adichie 2009). The Reach prequel thus imposes a narrative that shapes (and possibly changes) thoughts and beliefs about the overall canon. 
Even throughout a playthrough of Reach one questions renewables’ compatibility with urban-futurist aesthetics, or whether it is politically or economically scalable to city-, or military-scale use. The aesthetics of New Alexandria are affective. One can imagine living somewhere in these cities, making use of its many interconnected public squares, and plazas. They communicate clean minimalism, and the urban planning nears complete integration, but there is also tremendous opacity. One cannot glean (from the exterior) the program, or purpose of any individual building or cluster – including its energy need, or potential sources [see gallery figure 3]. The possible answer to the questions one develops about renewables (though never fully settled) is ever-present in the negative, by omission relative to the game’s opening experience with contrasting rural applications.
Far more extreme would be the gamer that extrapolates and attributes the narrative of the fall of Reach to some lack of preparedness, capability, or force associated with the presence or use of renewables. The player’s perspective as a Spartan that is equipped with gas-powered technology performs a valorization operation, and presents renewables as a weak, or ineffectual energy source by contrast. Keep in mind that Reach represented the first such engagement with the Covenant (one of the main enemy forces) in earth-controlled space and runs on an emotional narrative. The campaign always ends as an integrated cutscene with the player controlling the last remaining Spartan as the planet is ‘glassed’ by the victorious Covenant. Irrational responses and extreme associations therefore are to be expected. These sorts of classification of narrative represent an in for discussion of an interesting concept that is situated between climate science and urban planning. This concept is defensible drama (DD). In DD, emotional response is valued as an input toward personal behavioural, and collective change. Climate change simulations, and other rendered representations are situated against a backdrop of local contexts and are used to elicit the emotional response (Sheppard et al. 2008). DD represents an attempt to navigate a specific group-singular narrative but can also be perceived as single story articulation. Again, science and experimental rigor act as ‘fail-safes’ to concerns about this type of representation’s objectivity, accuracy, and ethical concerns.

'''References'''

Abraham (2018). “Video Game Visions of Climate Futures: ARMA 3 and Implications for Games and Persuasion” Games and Culture Vol. 13(1), pp. 71-91.

Adichie (2009). “The Danger of a Single Story” TedGlobal. Accessed at: https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story

Baerg (2009). “Governmentality, Neoliberalism, and the Digital Game” Symploke Vol. 17, pp. 115–127.

Mukherjee (2018). “Playing Subaltern” Games and Culture Vol. 13(5), pp. 504-520.

Schön (1983). “Reflective Practice”. Basic Books New York

Sheppard (2008). “Can Visualisation Save the World? - Lessons for Landscape Architects from Visualizing Local Climate Change”. Accessed at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255570495_Can_Visualisation_Save_the_World_-_Lessons_for_Landscape_Architects_from_Visualizing_Local_Climate_Change

== Meta-Reading Notes ==
Coming soon (working on digitization)...

== Other Content ==
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTOXDnX-HA Edmund's Game Proposal 7/2/2019]

(Forgot to mention '''Possible tools!''')

RPGmaker: for easy/built-in item, or resource manager

Unity: 3D/more visual detail, agent pathfinding (for if a Pikmin-style game)

'''Reference Links:'''

[https://www.catan.com/game/catan-scenarios-oil-springs Catan OilSprings Expansion]

[https://www.pcgamesn.com/hellblade-senuas-sacrifice/hellblade-documentary Hellblade Article]

== My UserPage ==
[https://www.refugeesrespond.org/dadaabwikimedia/index.php?title=User:Edmund]

Edmund's Page

2019-04-04T21:12:31Z

Edmund: /* Production 7 */

== Production 2 ==

Flow was mentioned a few times throughout Bogost’s book. Having already read some work on the topic of flow, I felt it would be useful to dedicate a separate chapter to its coverage. Bogost referenced an important work on flow by Csikszentmihalyi, and used the term in sections dealing with relaxation, and to a lesser degree in the 'Music' and 'Transit' sections. The latter's mention was albeit, more likely based on a logistical definition such as when referring to traffic rates and volumes of people or goods.

B’s ‘Music’ section, however, is a useful “in” to understanding flow due to its emphasis on timing, and various embodiments. This is supported in athletic, and musical performance literature which espouses the benefits of flow-like states, and recommends rhythmic breathing, and other auditory devices. Many videogamers may find such training and strategies useful as well.

Cz's concept of flow can certainly account for relaxation, and performance. These exist along axes of challenge, and skill (see the diagram).
[[File:File_Challenge_vs_skill_svg_Wikipedia.png|200px|thumb|left|alt text]]
His and other work, also provide first hand accounts which begin to describe flow as a state of unison between body and mind. Other definitions include great concentration, or absorption in an activity at hand.

B's book abounds on many of video games’ experiential aspects. Maybe this is largely subjective (and contrary to what gamification consultants may say), or perhaps there are common aspects of videogames - such as art, music, or kitsch which can appeal (relax, worry, bore, arouse, etc.) broadly.

The general skill requirement of videogames often centres on manipulation of inputs towards an algorithmic end (winning a point, moving an avatar etc.). These inputs consist of embodied activities such as precise, ordered manipulation of buttons, joysticks, or other devices. The activities themselves, are notably similar to the inputs required in the performance of many musical instruments. Furthermore, whatever might be occurring in-game impresses its own 'reading' challenges as well, and imposes strategic challenges, and an embodied demand of quick input reactions. Exercise games are an especially interesting subset of games, which no doubt increase the physical demand of challenge, skill, and perhaps enjoyment as well.

From discussion of players and roles we know that anyone can fill the protagonists' shoes. Gaming communities are starting to become interested in watching and engaging with these players. Consider the growth in popularity of game streaming and tournament broadcasts. Much like athletic, or musical prowess, flow is an ever-present personal state, or quality. Consequently, flow provides equal opportunity for entertainment and (along with some notable social skills and other factors) is capable of drawing a crowd. The old adage says something along the lines of “it’s not important whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game”. Some of the week 3 reading (Nolan & McBride, etc.) helped shed some light on superficial game-based learning, and gamification. Interest in competition may always remain (wins and losses), but what is starting to compete with results for interest, is the players behind the competition, and their own unique “brand” of play. Put simply, audiences are becoming curious, and captivated by ''how'' certain players play.

== Production 3 ==
This week’s production is roughly split into two sections. These are connections between the trials of the hack-a-game game, and the workshop/game design literature; and an extension of the critique of gamification in digital game-based learning (DGBL).

Fullerton’s book outlines some practical considerations for game design. Communication is listed early on, as “the most important skill” (Fullerton 2008, 5) that designers can develop. This rang true in practice, as nearly all of the activities of the game-hacking exercise with the Space Race game focused on communication. In addition to being most prevalent, it was also the most challenging, and rewarding activity. It was largely unstructured, and undocumented. This may have been appropriate for a small group of first-timers, but one does wonder to what degree such communication is ‘organic’ in professional practice. Fullerton also includes a section dedicated to team communication, and lists formal meetings, or less formal (but still organized) ‘scrums’ as good communication structures. Furthermore Fullerton identifies a set of common specifications, or documents being a big part of the design team’s work, and listed it as key to ‘standardizing’ communication (Fullerton 2008, 15). One can certainly imagine the added challenges if in our relatively ‘fluid’ hack of Space Race, the three designers also approached from different ‘angles’ (e.g. education/background, competencies, vocabulary, etc.).

The Design Process of the hack-a-game game trial was similarly fluid, and seems describable by some combination of playercentric, and iterative. In a way, the trial group did not consider player experience early enough in the process – something Fullerton would prefer (Fullerton 2008, 10-11) – but it seemed to emerge through iteration. A good example is when the group discovered they had greatly extended the length of the game, and reactively swapped scoring, for a ‘last-goal-wins’ mechanic. It is possible that the team was rather lucky with the ‘path’ of hacks chosen. Perhaps an initial idea was not so foundational, and thus did not end up pigeon-holing any subsequent ideas (i.e. into a similar theme, mechanic, etc.). Imagining the Process as an infinity of possible hack-decisions at the outset: surely some of these decisions take on a ‘tree-limb’, or fractal form. For example, decision 1, may only allow for a series of 1a,b,c decisions, and precludes additional decisions of 2, 3, … n. Another point to consider as part of the Process, is that this trial of the hack-a-game game involved an analog game, and therefore required little computational literacy. Certain functions, and conditionals were instantiated, and modified in analog – and it is likely that a digital Design Process would be affected by the group’s competency of enacting these (most certainly in speed, or number of possible hack tests) in a digital format.

In transitioning to a discussion of DGBL, there are opinions, research, and policy which exist on a spectrum between full support, or opposition. One of these is the concept of digital natives, and their perceived (yet not wholly proven) skill with digital technologies. Other supportive arguments seem clear-cut but are murky in their own right. Researchers such as diSessa and Wing see that there “is a growing acknowledgement among educational researchers, computer scientists and teachers that “computational thinking” and algorithmic logic ought to be considered a kind of “core literacy”” (Jenson & Droumeva, 2017). Broadly conceived, an algorithm is a process of problem solving. Is there any risk/complication associated with learning computer science principles through gameplay/design ''only'', especially at a young age? Further to this, one might question if lusory attitudes (an important facet of game play, and development) may be coopted for the facilitation of certain curricula. Bernard Suits defines a lusory attitude as “the player’s adoption of the rule-set of a game” (Nolan & McBride 2014, 599). One specific concern is the potential tension (or worse – passivity) which may result between critical thinking (e.g. challenging norms, questioning society, etc.) and the installation of a series of DGBL rule-sets. This is especially concerning given education’s historical mandate of preparing students for future careers, and curricula around ‘making’ with technology that are purportedly built on an “understanding of the ''good things''” (emphasis added) (Thumlert et al. 2018, 705). At times, this has amounted to little more than superficial ‘gamification’, essentially only serving to extend a curricular desire for another form of accounting. Gamification can and has been installed into professional work settings with varying degrees of success, but it is not yet clear what implications may exist for these so-called digital natives who are soon to enter the workforce.

'''References'''

Fullerton (2008). “Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games”. ''Elsevier''

Jenson & Droumeva (2017). “Revisiting the Media Generation: Youth Media Use and Computational Literacy instruction”.
''E-Learning and Digital Media.'' Vol. 14(4), pp. 212-225.

Nolan & McBride (2014). “Beyond Gamification: Reconceptualizing Game Based Learning in Early Childhood Environments.”
''Information, Communication & Society.'' Vol. 17(5), pp. 594-608.

Thumlert et al. (2018). “Learning Through Game Design: A Production Pedagogy”. ''Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Game-Based Learning ECGBL''

== Production 4 ==
Option 2: De-Composing Runescape

Some brief background: Runescape is a popular MMORPG. Roughly 2000 players can be accommodated on a single game world (server), with an instantaneous average of 100,000 active players (MisplacedMe 2019). A players’ first actions consist of modifying the appearance of their avatar ‘character’ and completing a tutorial of the major facets of the game.

The premise of the game is multifaceted (combat, quest completion/puzzle-solving, construction, mini-games etc.) with an underlying economic resource production/management theme. It is set in the realm of Gielinor – best described as a stylized medieval earth that features fantasy elements (think: Martin’s continental setting for the Game of Thrones series, or Tolkien’s setting of Middle Earth).
Implicit in the combat, and resource gathering mechanics is a sense of linear progression from reality-inspired, to fantasy-inspired. This perhaps parallels a model of scientific innovation, ''or'' historical “ages” of production that connote some ‘better’ performance. For example, the earliest accessible metals (bronze or iron) correspond to a low level of combat weapon damage, or armour protection, and resource gathering speed/efficiency. Higher level, better performing metals consist of adamant (‘borrowed’ from mythology, and Marvel comics lore), rune, and dragon (‘proprietary’), to name a few. The association of linear progress with performance/efficiency may reinforce a few pedagogies about innovation (e.g. it always or is only to be found in the future).

The rule sets and systems are conceptually quite simple. They are made complex or dynamic by the interactions (or lack thereof*) with other players or non-player characters.

The primary mechanic is movement. It is constrained to an orthogonal grid within the player’s field of view, and performed through clicking a chosen destination. A pathfinding routine is then called, and the player’s movement is animated. This is one of the earliest remaining ‘foundational’ elements of Runescape and has influenced gameplay in numerous ways. Foremost, it rewards exploration into the unknown – the initial location of the game caters to learning, and low-level play. Furthermore, over time and with practice, players discover how to manipulate pathfinding mechanics, and (more importantly) that of NPCs. A key combat skill (but one that may never be formalized through the tutorial) is the ability to attract and trap an aggressive NPC or player behind obstacles or barriers. This brings to mind Fullerton’s suggestions about playtesting. It is entirely possible that Runescape’s original designer – Andrew Gower envisioned rigid ‘to the death’ combat scenarios (valuing preparation, and strategy). However, player tendencies (e.g. curiosity and exploration) led to a more dynamic conception of strategy, which added flight, and avoidance to fight events. Flexibility and a willingness to adapt have allowed this rather unique tactic to flourish as a somewhat tacit aspect of Runescape culture.

There are no explicit win conditions, save for the narrative-laden Quests that a player may opt to begin. Goals, and win-conditions are largely self-determined. Some view skill mastery as a goal (i.e. “maxing out”), while others may choose to try and maximize their resources, defeat other players in combat, attain certain items, complete quests, play mini-games, or socialize. There is an explicit loss condition when a player loses all of their health points. This results in a ‘respawn’ where all new players enter the game (a relatively safe location), and (depending on the circumstances of their death) possible loss of held items. Other implied ‘losses’ include poor investment, or receiving disciplinary actions (such as mutes, or account bans).
Another important mechanic is the random number generator (RNG) and drop tables. Greater skill accumulation (in combat or resource-gathering skills) results in better position along the mentioned performance/”age” line. However, in order to maintain interest, and/or competitive balance an element of randomness is introduced to most activities via RNG. The RNG-driven drop tables also greatly impact the game economy. That is, it determines the probable amounts of resources and items that ‘enter’ the game through player actions.

One instance of gameplay based on relative isolation (in contrast to interaction) is worth mentioning. The developers noticed a trend emerging (The Runescape Wiki 2014): For whatever reason (added challenge, etc.) players would not engage in trade with others. Instead they would look to ‘perform’ the game under a self-imposed ruleset of self-sufficiency. This led to the official instantiation of the Iron(wo)man game mode, with official restrictions and an accompanying player title.

'''Update'''

The following are some ideas that expand the discussion to include some of the learning content and readings. Concepts about digital games and situated learning/cognition come out via the movement-exploration mechanic of RS. Controlling the avatar character allows for a learning that is "an outcome of the interaction between an individual and the environment or social setting" (Marone, 4). In addition to being a primary driver of narrative, movement and exploration via the player character avatar also produce a hybridization with the player user. This is further supported by other facets of the game such as the extensive customization of avatar aesthetics, which serve to visually connect player and avatar. A nice, combined example of visual, movement-based hybridization is also present in the game in the form of gestures known as emotes. Examples include waving, cheering, thinking or various skill-related emotes. Most emotes can be used for various non-textual communications with other players or NPCs.

Declarative knowledge application (though there are a few examples) recedes into the background of RS for the most part, while procedural knowledge tends to come to the fore.
The tacit movement skills, such as the barrier trapping mentioned above, illustrate a procedural knowledge application. Though it can be communicated, it still is relatively non-declarative. A case of "you know it when you see it". Successful application requires ''performance'', but few probably understand or even know of the underlying mechanics of a pathfinding algorithm. Anecdotally: 'luck' and observation may play a major role as conditions for this type of learning, unless the player has the benefit of social connection with existing players. Still, it is one of those digital skills/activities for which successful performance might be based on a feel, and reflexive response to certain visual cues, rather than adherence to strict instruction.

Relatively recently - developer and community posts began to refer to the RNG's role in the item-drop, or "loot" system (in response to player community curiosity). Shortly after - either out of comedy, ignorance, etc. - players have since coined the phrase "I used up all my RNG" to refer to an instance or series of perceived "bad luck" where RNG is thought to play a part. Regardless of its inaccuracy, this phrase may be grounded in some sort of declarative knowledge about probabilities, yet its use is entirely grounded in procedural knowledge (i.e. prior experience of dynamically determined probable outcomes).
Attempts to make procedural probability knowledge declarative are ongoing both in/outside of the game. Within: developers have released statistical tracking add-ons, that can help a player manage personal probabilistic data. Outwith: community sites (including wikis) attempt to perform the same knowledge gathering - but with it wholly determined (i.e. composed of multiple players' contributed data).

'''References'''

MisplacedMe (2019). “Runescape Player Count by Qtr Hr" Accessed at: http://www.misplaceditems.com/rs_tools/graph/

The Runescape Wiki (2014). "Ironman & Drop Table Reworks" Accessed at: https://runescape.fandom.com/wiki/Update:Ironman_%26_Drop_Table_Reworks

Marone (2016). "Playful Constructivism: Making Sense of Digital Games for Learning and Creativity Through Play, Design, and Participation" ''Journal of Virtual Worlds Research'' Vol. 9(3).

== Production 5 ==
Opt. 2: Play/Games definition a la H & C + Investigation via a Game

Personally, my favorite concept which represents play is that its nature cannot be determined and/or explained through scientific principles, and modes of investigation. Perhaps related, is play’s lack of moral function (Huizinga, 102). Play is also primary. I use primary in the sense of cognitive, but also evolutionary development in the same spirit as when Huizinga and Caillois refer to young children and animals. Primary often connotes an inferiority relative to the more-developed (not a sentiment I agree with mind you, i.e. “simple is hard”; “K.I.S.S.”; etc.). The notion of more-developed (anti-play) manifests as serious, daily-life, or boring types of activities. Usually these activities (even in complex examples like serious play) hinge on some aspect of society, or culture (e.g. economy, social status/class, etc.). I recall reading some research – I cannot remember the exact field, but perhaps it was psychology – that put forth an interesting finding. That is that biological adults needing to perform serious, and “adult” activities (and more importantly, to be ''seen performing'' these activities) indicates a fundamentally childish characteristic, or desire. Note: that this extension of play vs. seriousness includes this research not as an indictment of adult-serious, or play-childish executive function. It is more meant to question the performativity of play vs. seriousness, and the rigid linear model that is always applied to what is clearly a subjective spectrum composed of multiple factors such as enjoyment, and utility. Consider that some experience a genuinely dizzying vertigo from the play of effective accounting. Some approach it as a mimetic activity that straddles play/the serious. Yet some others treat it as an entirely boring, serious activity.
Thus Caillois’ work is helpful as a framework for what might be termed ''applications of play''. Furthermore, these applications are self- or co-determined expressions. Obviously this definition requires additional research, and distillation, and may be best openly presented as an ongoing exercise.

Therefore: 
Play is a primary application of subjective, or ''labile'' expression. It is devoid of moral function, and relatively slippery for analysis by systematic, rational modes of enquiry.

The game I will test this definition upon, is Halo: Reach (HR). The game features a variety of ludus and paidia according to various modes of play. There a number of game modes ranging from the story-driven campaign, to survival scenarios, to custom, and competitive multiplayer. I will explore some of the game mechanics, and coded preferences for subjective expression which can be controlled by a player to some extent. The best “in” to these mechanics is through HR’s multiplayer-mode “matchmaking” system. In addition to persistent local area network (LAN) multiplayer, HR is the third installment of the franchise which features online competitive/co-operative game play. In this installment, players are able to tailor their probable player network for the next game they join, based on four qualities under the banner of ‘Psych Profile’: 
Chattiness. Binary option for preference of chatty, or quiet teammates. 
Motivation. Binary option for preference of winning, or good-time seeking teammates. 
Teamwork. Binary option for preference of team player, or lone wolf teammates. 
Tone. Binary option for preference of rowdy, or polite chatting teammates. 

Multiplayer games offer various outlets for social expression, and rules and social controls (such as the psych profile) serve to introduce lability and customization of the player experience. While being a very play-centric concept, it also hits on the above definition’s caveat of lack of moral function. HR’s social controls remove certain groups of players. This brings to mind exclusionary practices, which are certainly prevalent in games of all types, and often made explicit in the case of childrens’ turbulent and lusory attitudes to preference setting. It is not uncommon to hear of games which restrict participation from the outset (or even during play) for apt, or arbitrary reasons. For example, potential players may be excluded from a game for reasons of social status, their hygienic perception, so-called “competitive balance”, or any other indicator. In HR social controls are based on indicators which are quantified and referred to as metrics. The social control condition of play thus shifts from being based in public personal/co-determined subjective opinion, or objective truths – to a digital environment that enforces social relations in a private, probabilistic manner.

It is perhaps ironic, that the campaign narrative, which is structured around a variety of individual team-member play styles does not allow for the same dynamic preference setting as the multiplayer match-making experience. One may engage in prescribed teamwork-, or ‘lone-wolf-’ style campaign missions, but can rarely break the mould, or effect AI/NPC social traits such as chattiness or motivation. In addition to network customization, HR offers play as a medium for subjective expression by (an albeit limited) customization of the player’s multiplayer avatar. These customizations effect many forms of expression such as gender, voice (patterned after some campaign characters) as well as the player’s armour form, colour, and markings. Furthermore, customizations can include capabilities which affect the competitive quality or style of play. A player may select one default special ability or swap them at will in certain games modes. This leads to a relatively unknown element in multiplayer matches in terms of specific ability distribution. This is perhaps the developers’ best effort at introducing a dynamic means of expression which varies based on different interactions with the game as a system.

An interesting claim provided in the explanation of multiplayer network settings is that (in all cases): “changing preferred [setting] will not affect search times.” This is perhaps an indication of the contemporary developer wisdom which suggests that players value a gaming experience with little down-time between games/rounds. If the disclaimer is accepted as true, it also may indicate that the valuation of speed exceeds that of these various social qualities.

Huizinga (1955). “Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Homo Ludens) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via Beacon Press.''

Caillois (1961). “The Definition of Play and The Classification of Games”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Man, Play and Games) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via University of Illinois Press''

== Production 7 ==
<gallery mode=packed-hover>
File:Reach-Farmhouse.jpg|Fig. 1- Reach Farmhouse
File:Reach-Turbines.jpg|Fig. 2- Rural Wind Turbines
File:Caracalla park(Tacitus Halopedia).jpg|Fig. 3- Caracalla Park - a good setting to harvest wind on New Alexandria's outskirts
</gallery>

This production looks to build on concepts of aesthetics, the subaltern and future imaginaries in the cultural studies of videogames. These include: future imaginaries surrounding energy security, and the aesthetics of future, urban, military, or rural renewable energy technology. This work will also consider the subsequent effects of: perceived canonical inconsistency and; affect (e.g. valorization, frustration, etc.) resulting from narrative. The Halo franchise will be used to situate the former, and the game Halo: Reach, for the Xbox360 will be used as a lens to explore the remaining concepts through its narrative-laden campaign mode. A novel contribution is made at the end of the discussion of futurism aesthetics. This is that inconsistent experimentation with a future imaginary aesthetic, produces a specific, visual, ''tokenism''.

Halo: Reach’s opening level renders several small wind-energy harvesters across the landscape of what appears to be a dedicated farming planet (named Reach). This is familiar territory, as It is through this representation of a future setting that persuasion and direct engagement challenges are bypassed (Abraham 2018). Abraham’s work is based on the game ARMA 3, as an island setting which represented a number of large, centralized renewable energy facilities and systems (solar arrays, wind farms, etc.). One can argue that in reality, from a functional standpoint: rural communities, and – more specifically – household units are the setting for the most effective present implementations of renewable energy generation. Certainly, such units have been a major factor in the genesis, and growth in popularity of such technologies for pragmatic factors such as distance/inefficiency in traditional access of centralized systems, spatial seclusion, etc. Distributed, smaller-scale implementation such as on Reach is just as likely (if not more so) a scenario for near-future energy generation capacities, relative to large-scale facilities.

It is unclear whether some of Reach’s rural inhabitants (mostly unencountered due to evacuation) are permanent settlers, or if they are transient labourers in agriculture, or resource extraction. Though the farms, and shipping hubs portray technological sophistication/futurism, secure in their access to energy, they also communicate humble pragmatism. Structures make use of the natural landscape, rarely appearing out of place, and only seemingly connected by informal infrastructure such as dirt roads [see gallery figure 1]. This is reinforced by contrast with the introduction of an investigating Spartan team, their military technology at the fore. This technology includes vehicles and weapons which propel due to the work of diegetic, combustion-based mechanisms. Later in the game, Reach is revealed to have areas with more advanced industries and infrastructure, such as ship-building facilities, titanium mines, and large cities (like New Alexandria). Renewable energy seems fine for activities like farming or powering small rural dwellings, but strictly political-economic applications (such as military, or city operations) do not make overt use of this kind of energy. A colonial otherness thus contributes to the perception of a renewable energy tokenism. Simply defined: tokenism is a perfunctory or symbolic effort. Often it refers to instances of racialism and efforts to portray equality. It seems that tokenism is the antithesis, or saboteur of Ian Bogost’s & Mary Flanagan’s ideas of subversive video games. Generally, tokenism equates to some new venture, but ultimately plans not to achieve disruption or transformative effects of any significance, resulting in preservation of the status quo. 
Renewable energy tokenism pervades due to the omission of meaningful representations of military, or city-scale applications. There is a definite otherness to the rural treatment of renewable energy, which is somehow unable (or unwilling) to translate to urban settings – the traditional site of colonial power. Donald Schön states that “experiments should not “confirm” and “answer” to a challenge but affirm that challenge”. He also goes on to relate that computer science (game design included) is turning to a model of continuous dialogue between values and practice (Schön 1983). The modeling of futuristic, vertically-oriented wind turbines assets [see gallery figure 2] is valuable as an experiment of exposure to an imagined energy future. Designers do not need to necessarily valorize renewable energy, or a specific technology. However, in order to be a successful experiment, Halo: Reach’s designers require dialogue with a greater treatment of the scientific principles of experimental procedure. The enactment of tenets such as rigorous application, and adequate sampling, throughout the design of Halo: Reach would give the renewable energy imaginary its proper due.

Energy security is a particularly troubling topic when Reach is viewed as a prequel in the Halo franchise, as this was the first installment to represent renewable energy generation mechanisms in any detail. The canon of renewables in the franchise (used in the all-encompassing sense of zeitgeist, or orthodoxy) is thus fragmented. Audiences will view the omission of renewables (in chronologically earlier releases) as a loss of momentum for the fictional renewable energy industry/market. Economic inflections are common in video games. Baerg says that the procedural rhetoric of video games supports an economically inflected rationality behind the making of choices (Baerg 2009), and the example of Reach perhaps represents an economic-narrative element. Mukherjee made use of the concept of canon toward his definition of sub-altern amid postcolonial undertones in video games. Ultimately, subaltern is a concept concerned with writing history from below, but it often lacks a voice to articulate itself. This facility of articulation involves exercise of any number of powers such as political, social, or economic (Mukherjee 2018). Thus as a perceived element that was “phased out” in chronological Halo canon, renewable energy generation is made subaltern. From Reach to the next installment, questions arise about renewables’ economic, political, and/or social viability/tenability. The sort of precedence offered by a prequel takes on features of an articulation strategy known as the single story (SS). This is a narrative device that has supported colonial and postcolonial efforts, by retaining power and limiting articulation of native cultural voice (Adichie 2009). The Reach prequel thus imposes a narrative that shapes (and possibly changes) thoughts and beliefs about the overall canon. 
Even throughout a playthrough of Reach one questions renewables’ compatibility with urban-futurist aesthetics, or whether it is politically or economically scalable to city-, or military-scale use. The aesthetics of New Alexandria are affective. One can imagine living somewhere in these cities, making use of its many interconnected public squares, and plazas. They communicate clean minimalism, and the urban planning nears complete integration, but there is also tremendous opacity. One cannot glean (from the exterior) the program, or purpose of any individual building or cluster – including its energy need, or potential sources [see gallery figure 3]. The possible answer to the questions one develops about renewables (though never fully settled) is ever-present in the negative, by omission relative to the game’s opening experience with contrasting rural applications.
Far more extreme would be the gamer that extrapolates and attributes the narrative of the fall of Reach to some lack of preparedness, capability, or force associated with the presence or use of renewables. The player’s perspective as a Spartan that is equipped with gas-powered technology performs a valorization operation, and presents renewables as a weak, or ineffectual energy source by contrast. Keep in mind that Reach represented the first such engagement with the Covenant (one of the main enemy forces) in earth-controlled space and runs on an emotional narrative. The campaign always ends as an integrated cutscene with the player controlling the last remaining Spartan as the planet is ‘glassed’ by the victorious Covenant. Irrational responses and extreme associations therefore are to be expected. These sorts of classification of narrative represent an in for discussion of an interesting concept that is situated between climate science and urban planning. This concept is defensible drama (DD). In DD, emotional response is valued as an input toward personal behavioural, and collective change. Climate change simulations, and other rendered representations are situated against a backdrop of local contexts and are used to elicit the emotional response (Sheppard et al. 2008). DD represents an attempt to navigate a specific group-singular narrative but can also be perceived as single story articulation. Again, science and experimental rigor act as ‘fail-safes’ to concerns about this type of representation’s objectivity, accuracy, and ethical concerns.

'''References'''

Abraham (2018). “Video Game Visions of Climate Futures: ARMA 3 and Implications for Games and Persuasion” Games and Culture Vol. 13(1), pp. 71-91.

Adichie (2009). “The Danger of a Single Story” TedGlobal. Accessed at: https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story

Baerg (2009). “Governmentality, Neoliberalism, and the Digital Game” Symploke Vol. 17, pp. 115–127.

Mukherjee (2018). “Playing Subaltern” Games and Culture Vol. 13(5), pp. 504-520.

Schön (1983). “Reflective Practice”. Basic Books New York

Sheppard (2008). “Can Visualisation Save the World? - Lessons for Landscape Architects from Visualizing Local Climate Change”. Accessed at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255570495_Can_Visualisation_Save_the_World_-_Lessons_for_Landscape_Architects_from_Visualizing_Local_Climate_Change

== Meta-Reading Notes ==
Coming soon (working on digitization)...

== Other Content ==
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTOXDnX-HA Edmund's Game Proposal 7/2/2019]

(Forgot to mention '''Possible tools!''')

RPGmaker: for easy/built-in item, or resource manager

Unity: 3D/more visual detail, agent pathfinding (for if a Pikmin-style game)

'''Reference Links:'''

[https://www.catan.com/game/catan-scenarios-oil-springs Catan OilSprings Expansion]

[https://www.pcgamesn.com/hellblade-senuas-sacrifice/hellblade-documentary Hellblade Article]

== My UserPage ==
[https://www.refugeesrespond.org/dadaabwikimedia/index.php?title=User:Edmund]

Edmund's Page

2019-04-04T21:08:59Z

Edmund: /* Production 7 */

== Production 2 ==

Flow was mentioned a few times throughout Bogost’s book. Having already read some work on the topic of flow, I felt it would be useful to dedicate a separate chapter to its coverage. Bogost referenced an important work on flow by Csikszentmihalyi, and used the term in sections dealing with relaxation, and to a lesser degree in the 'Music' and 'Transit' sections. The latter's mention was albeit, more likely based on a logistical definition such as when referring to traffic rates and volumes of people or goods.

B’s ‘Music’ section, however, is a useful “in” to understanding flow due to its emphasis on timing, and various embodiments. This is supported in athletic, and musical performance literature which espouses the benefits of flow-like states, and recommends rhythmic breathing, and other auditory devices. Many videogamers may find such training and strategies useful as well.

Cz's concept of flow can certainly account for relaxation, and performance. These exist along axes of challenge, and skill (see the diagram).
[[File:File_Challenge_vs_skill_svg_Wikipedia.png|200px|thumb|left|alt text]]
His and other work, also provide first hand accounts which begin to describe flow as a state of unison between body and mind. Other definitions include great concentration, or absorption in an activity at hand.

B's book abounds on many of video games’ experiential aspects. Maybe this is largely subjective (and contrary to what gamification consultants may say), or perhaps there are common aspects of videogames - such as art, music, or kitsch which can appeal (relax, worry, bore, arouse, etc.) broadly.

The general skill requirement of videogames often centres on manipulation of inputs towards an algorithmic end (winning a point, moving an avatar etc.). These inputs consist of embodied activities such as precise, ordered manipulation of buttons, joysticks, or other devices. The activities themselves, are notably similar to the inputs required in the performance of many musical instruments. Furthermore, whatever might be occurring in-game impresses its own 'reading' challenges as well, and imposes strategic challenges, and an embodied demand of quick input reactions. Exercise games are an especially interesting subset of games, which no doubt increase the physical demand of challenge, skill, and perhaps enjoyment as well.

From discussion of players and roles we know that anyone can fill the protagonists' shoes. Gaming communities are starting to become interested in watching and engaging with these players. Consider the growth in popularity of game streaming and tournament broadcasts. Much like athletic, or musical prowess, flow is an ever-present personal state, or quality. Consequently, flow provides equal opportunity for entertainment and (along with some notable social skills and other factors) is capable of drawing a crowd. The old adage says something along the lines of “it’s not important whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game”. Some of the week 3 reading (Nolan & McBride, etc.) helped shed some light on superficial game-based learning, and gamification. Interest in competition may always remain (wins and losses), but what is starting to compete with results for interest, is the players behind the competition, and their own unique “brand” of play. Put simply, audiences are becoming curious, and captivated by ''how'' certain players play.

== Production 3 ==
This week’s production is roughly split into two sections. These are connections between the trials of the hack-a-game game, and the workshop/game design literature; and an extension of the critique of gamification in digital game-based learning (DGBL).

Fullerton’s book outlines some practical considerations for game design. Communication is listed early on, as “the most important skill” (Fullerton 2008, 5) that designers can develop. This rang true in practice, as nearly all of the activities of the game-hacking exercise with the Space Race game focused on communication. In addition to being most prevalent, it was also the most challenging, and rewarding activity. It was largely unstructured, and undocumented. This may have been appropriate for a small group of first-timers, but one does wonder to what degree such communication is ‘organic’ in professional practice. Fullerton also includes a section dedicated to team communication, and lists formal meetings, or less formal (but still organized) ‘scrums’ as good communication structures. Furthermore Fullerton identifies a set of common specifications, or documents being a big part of the design team’s work, and listed it as key to ‘standardizing’ communication (Fullerton 2008, 15). One can certainly imagine the added challenges if in our relatively ‘fluid’ hack of Space Race, the three designers also approached from different ‘angles’ (e.g. education/background, competencies, vocabulary, etc.).

The Design Process of the hack-a-game game trial was similarly fluid, and seems describable by some combination of playercentric, and iterative. In a way, the trial group did not consider player experience early enough in the process – something Fullerton would prefer (Fullerton 2008, 10-11) – but it seemed to emerge through iteration. A good example is when the group discovered they had greatly extended the length of the game, and reactively swapped scoring, for a ‘last-goal-wins’ mechanic. It is possible that the team was rather lucky with the ‘path’ of hacks chosen. Perhaps an initial idea was not so foundational, and thus did not end up pigeon-holing any subsequent ideas (i.e. into a similar theme, mechanic, etc.). Imagining the Process as an infinity of possible hack-decisions at the outset: surely some of these decisions take on a ‘tree-limb’, or fractal form. For example, decision 1, may only allow for a series of 1a,b,c decisions, and precludes additional decisions of 2, 3, … n. Another point to consider as part of the Process, is that this trial of the hack-a-game game involved an analog game, and therefore required little computational literacy. Certain functions, and conditionals were instantiated, and modified in analog – and it is likely that a digital Design Process would be affected by the group’s competency of enacting these (most certainly in speed, or number of possible hack tests) in a digital format.

In transitioning to a discussion of DGBL, there are opinions, research, and policy which exist on a spectrum between full support, or opposition. One of these is the concept of digital natives, and their perceived (yet not wholly proven) skill with digital technologies. Other supportive arguments seem clear-cut but are murky in their own right. Researchers such as diSessa and Wing see that there “is a growing acknowledgement among educational researchers, computer scientists and teachers that “computational thinking” and algorithmic logic ought to be considered a kind of “core literacy”” (Jenson & Droumeva, 2017). Broadly conceived, an algorithm is a process of problem solving. Is there any risk/complication associated with learning computer science principles through gameplay/design ''only'', especially at a young age? Further to this, one might question if lusory attitudes (an important facet of game play, and development) may be coopted for the facilitation of certain curricula. Bernard Suits defines a lusory attitude as “the player’s adoption of the rule-set of a game” (Nolan & McBride 2014, 599). One specific concern is the potential tension (or worse – passivity) which may result between critical thinking (e.g. challenging norms, questioning society, etc.) and the installation of a series of DGBL rule-sets. This is especially concerning given education’s historical mandate of preparing students for future careers, and curricula around ‘making’ with technology that are purportedly built on an “understanding of the ''good things''” (emphasis added) (Thumlert et al. 2018, 705). At times, this has amounted to little more than superficial ‘gamification’, essentially only serving to extend a curricular desire for another form of accounting. Gamification can and has been installed into professional work settings with varying degrees of success, but it is not yet clear what implications may exist for these so-called digital natives who are soon to enter the workforce.

'''References'''

Fullerton (2008). “Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games”. ''Elsevier''

Jenson & Droumeva (2017). “Revisiting the Media Generation: Youth Media Use and Computational Literacy instruction”.
''E-Learning and Digital Media.'' Vol. 14(4), pp. 212-225.

Nolan & McBride (2014). “Beyond Gamification: Reconceptualizing Game Based Learning in Early Childhood Environments.”
''Information, Communication & Society.'' Vol. 17(5), pp. 594-608.

Thumlert et al. (2018). “Learning Through Game Design: A Production Pedagogy”. ''Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Game-Based Learning ECGBL''

== Production 4 ==
Option 2: De-Composing Runescape

Some brief background: Runescape is a popular MMORPG. Roughly 2000 players can be accommodated on a single game world (server), with an instantaneous average of 100,000 active players (MisplacedMe 2019). A players’ first actions consist of modifying the appearance of their avatar ‘character’ and completing a tutorial of the major facets of the game.

The premise of the game is multifaceted (combat, quest completion/puzzle-solving, construction, mini-games etc.) with an underlying economic resource production/management theme. It is set in the realm of Gielinor – best described as a stylized medieval earth that features fantasy elements (think: Martin’s continental setting for the Game of Thrones series, or Tolkien’s setting of Middle Earth).
Implicit in the combat, and resource gathering mechanics is a sense of linear progression from reality-inspired, to fantasy-inspired. This perhaps parallels a model of scientific innovation, ''or'' historical “ages” of production that connote some ‘better’ performance. For example, the earliest accessible metals (bronze or iron) correspond to a low level of combat weapon damage, or armour protection, and resource gathering speed/efficiency. Higher level, better performing metals consist of adamant (‘borrowed’ from mythology, and Marvel comics lore), rune, and dragon (‘proprietary’), to name a few. The association of linear progress with performance/efficiency may reinforce a few pedagogies about innovation (e.g. it always or is only to be found in the future).

The rule sets and systems are conceptually quite simple. They are made complex or dynamic by the interactions (or lack thereof*) with other players or non-player characters.

The primary mechanic is movement. It is constrained to an orthogonal grid within the player’s field of view, and performed through clicking a chosen destination. A pathfinding routine is then called, and the player’s movement is animated. This is one of the earliest remaining ‘foundational’ elements of Runescape and has influenced gameplay in numerous ways. Foremost, it rewards exploration into the unknown – the initial location of the game caters to learning, and low-level play. Furthermore, over time and with practice, players discover how to manipulate pathfinding mechanics, and (more importantly) that of NPCs. A key combat skill (but one that may never be formalized through the tutorial) is the ability to attract and trap an aggressive NPC or player behind obstacles or barriers. This brings to mind Fullerton’s suggestions about playtesting. It is entirely possible that Runescape’s original designer – Andrew Gower envisioned rigid ‘to the death’ combat scenarios (valuing preparation, and strategy). However, player tendencies (e.g. curiosity and exploration) led to a more dynamic conception of strategy, which added flight, and avoidance to fight events. Flexibility and a willingness to adapt have allowed this rather unique tactic to flourish as a somewhat tacit aspect of Runescape culture.

There are no explicit win conditions, save for the narrative-laden Quests that a player may opt to begin. Goals, and win-conditions are largely self-determined. Some view skill mastery as a goal (i.e. “maxing out”), while others may choose to try and maximize their resources, defeat other players in combat, attain certain items, complete quests, play mini-games, or socialize. There is an explicit loss condition when a player loses all of their health points. This results in a ‘respawn’ where all new players enter the game (a relatively safe location), and (depending on the circumstances of their death) possible loss of held items. Other implied ‘losses’ include poor investment, or receiving disciplinary actions (such as mutes, or account bans).
Another important mechanic is the random number generator (RNG) and drop tables. Greater skill accumulation (in combat or resource-gathering skills) results in better position along the mentioned performance/”age” line. However, in order to maintain interest, and/or competitive balance an element of randomness is introduced to most activities via RNG. The RNG-driven drop tables also greatly impact the game economy. That is, it determines the probable amounts of resources and items that ‘enter’ the game through player actions.

One instance of gameplay based on relative isolation (in contrast to interaction) is worth mentioning. The developers noticed a trend emerging (The Runescape Wiki 2014): For whatever reason (added challenge, etc.) players would not engage in trade with others. Instead they would look to ‘perform’ the game under a self-imposed ruleset of self-sufficiency. This led to the official instantiation of the Iron(wo)man game mode, with official restrictions and an accompanying player title.

'''Update'''

The following are some ideas that expand the discussion to include some of the learning content and readings. Concepts about digital games and situated learning/cognition come out via the movement-exploration mechanic of RS. Controlling the avatar character allows for a learning that is "an outcome of the interaction between an individual and the environment or social setting" (Marone, 4). In addition to being a primary driver of narrative, movement and exploration via the player character avatar also produce a hybridization with the player user. This is further supported by other facets of the game such as the extensive customization of avatar aesthetics, which serve to visually connect player and avatar. A nice, combined example of visual, movement-based hybridization is also present in the game in the form of gestures known as emotes. Examples include waving, cheering, thinking or various skill-related emotes. Most emotes can be used for various non-textual communications with other players or NPCs.

Declarative knowledge application (though there are a few examples) recedes into the background of RS for the most part, while procedural knowledge tends to come to the fore.
The tacit movement skills, such as the barrier trapping mentioned above, illustrate a procedural knowledge application. Though it can be communicated, it still is relatively non-declarative. A case of "you know it when you see it". Successful application requires ''performance'', but few probably understand or even know of the underlying mechanics of a pathfinding algorithm. Anecdotally: 'luck' and observation may play a major role as conditions for this type of learning, unless the player has the benefit of social connection with existing players. Still, it is one of those digital skills/activities for which successful performance might be based on a feel, and reflexive response to certain visual cues, rather than adherence to strict instruction.

Relatively recently - developer and community posts began to refer to the RNG's role in the item-drop, or "loot" system (in response to player community curiosity). Shortly after - either out of comedy, ignorance, etc. - players have since coined the phrase "I used up all my RNG" to refer to an instance or series of perceived "bad luck" where RNG is thought to play a part. Regardless of its inaccuracy, this phrase may be grounded in some sort of declarative knowledge about probabilities, yet its use is entirely grounded in procedural knowledge (i.e. prior experience of dynamically determined probable outcomes).
Attempts to make procedural probability knowledge declarative are ongoing both in/outside of the game. Within: developers have released statistical tracking add-ons, that can help a player manage personal probabilistic data. Outwith: community sites (including wikis) attempt to perform the same knowledge gathering - but with it wholly determined (i.e. composed of multiple players' contributed data).

'''References'''

MisplacedMe (2019). “Runescape Player Count by Qtr Hr" Accessed at: http://www.misplaceditems.com/rs_tools/graph/

The Runescape Wiki (2014). "Ironman & Drop Table Reworks" Accessed at: https://runescape.fandom.com/wiki/Update:Ironman_%26_Drop_Table_Reworks

Marone (2016). "Playful Constructivism: Making Sense of Digital Games for Learning and Creativity Through Play, Design, and Participation" ''Journal of Virtual Worlds Research'' Vol. 9(3).

== Production 5 ==
Opt. 2: Play/Games definition a la H & C + Investigation via a Game

Personally, my favorite concept which represents play is that its nature cannot be determined and/or explained through scientific principles, and modes of investigation. Perhaps related, is play’s lack of moral function (Huizinga, 102). Play is also primary. I use primary in the sense of cognitive, but also evolutionary development in the same spirit as when Huizinga and Caillois refer to young children and animals. Primary often connotes an inferiority relative to the more-developed (not a sentiment I agree with mind you, i.e. “simple is hard”; “K.I.S.S.”; etc.). The notion of more-developed (anti-play) manifests as serious, daily-life, or boring types of activities. Usually these activities (even in complex examples like serious play) hinge on some aspect of society, or culture (e.g. economy, social status/class, etc.). I recall reading some research – I cannot remember the exact field, but perhaps it was psychology – that put forth an interesting finding. That is that biological adults needing to perform serious, and “adult” activities (and more importantly, to be ''seen performing'' these activities) indicates a fundamentally childish characteristic, or desire. Note: that this extension of play vs. seriousness includes this research not as an indictment of adult-serious, or play-childish executive function. It is more meant to question the performativity of play vs. seriousness, and the rigid linear model that is always applied to what is clearly a subjective spectrum composed of multiple factors such as enjoyment, and utility. Consider that some experience a genuinely dizzying vertigo from the play of effective accounting. Some approach it as a mimetic activity that straddles play/the serious. Yet some others treat it as an entirely boring, serious activity.
Thus Caillois’ work is helpful as a framework for what might be termed ''applications of play''. Furthermore, these applications are self- or co-determined expressions. Obviously this definition requires additional research, and distillation, and may be best openly presented as an ongoing exercise.

Therefore: 
Play is a primary application of subjective, or ''labile'' expression. It is devoid of moral function, and relatively slippery for analysis by systematic, rational modes of enquiry.

The game I will test this definition upon, is Halo: Reach (HR). The game features a variety of ludus and paidia according to various modes of play. There a number of game modes ranging from the story-driven campaign, to survival scenarios, to custom, and competitive multiplayer. I will explore some of the game mechanics, and coded preferences for subjective expression which can be controlled by a player to some extent. The best “in” to these mechanics is through HR’s multiplayer-mode “matchmaking” system. In addition to persistent local area network (LAN) multiplayer, HR is the third installment of the franchise which features online competitive/co-operative game play. In this installment, players are able to tailor their probable player network for the next game they join, based on four qualities under the banner of ‘Psych Profile’: 
Chattiness. Binary option for preference of chatty, or quiet teammates. 
Motivation. Binary option for preference of winning, or good-time seeking teammates. 
Teamwork. Binary option for preference of team player, or lone wolf teammates. 
Tone. Binary option for preference of rowdy, or polite chatting teammates. 

Multiplayer games offer various outlets for social expression, and rules and social controls (such as the psych profile) serve to introduce lability and customization of the player experience. While being a very play-centric concept, it also hits on the above definition’s caveat of lack of moral function. HR’s social controls remove certain groups of players. This brings to mind exclusionary practices, which are certainly prevalent in games of all types, and often made explicit in the case of childrens’ turbulent and lusory attitudes to preference setting. It is not uncommon to hear of games which restrict participation from the outset (or even during play) for apt, or arbitrary reasons. For example, potential players may be excluded from a game for reasons of social status, their hygienic perception, so-called “competitive balance”, or any other indicator. In HR social controls are based on indicators which are quantified and referred to as metrics. The social control condition of play thus shifts from being based in public personal/co-determined subjective opinion, or objective truths – to a digital environment that enforces social relations in a private, probabilistic manner.

It is perhaps ironic, that the campaign narrative, which is structured around a variety of individual team-member play styles does not allow for the same dynamic preference setting as the multiplayer match-making experience. One may engage in prescribed teamwork-, or ‘lone-wolf-’ style campaign missions, but can rarely break the mould, or effect AI/NPC social traits such as chattiness or motivation. In addition to network customization, HR offers play as a medium for subjective expression by (an albeit limited) customization of the player’s multiplayer avatar. These customizations effect many forms of expression such as gender, voice (patterned after some campaign characters) as well as the player’s armour form, colour, and markings. Furthermore, customizations can include capabilities which affect the competitive quality or style of play. A player may select one default special ability or swap them at will in certain games modes. This leads to a relatively unknown element in multiplayer matches in terms of specific ability distribution. This is perhaps the developers’ best effort at introducing a dynamic means of expression which varies based on different interactions with the game as a system.

An interesting claim provided in the explanation of multiplayer network settings is that (in all cases): “changing preferred [setting] will not affect search times.” This is perhaps an indication of the contemporary developer wisdom which suggests that players value a gaming experience with little down-time between games/rounds. If the disclaimer is accepted as true, it also may indicate that the valuation of speed exceeds that of these various social qualities.

Huizinga (1955). “Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Homo Ludens) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via Beacon Press.''

Caillois (1961). “The Definition of Play and The Classification of Games”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Man, Play and Games) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via University of Illinois Press''

== Production 7 ==
<gallery mode=packed-hover>
File:Reach-Farmhouse.jpg|Fig. 1- Reach Farmhouse
File:Reach-Turbines.jpg|Fig. 2- Rural Wind Turbines
File:Caracalla park(Tacitus Halopedia).jpg|Fig. 3- Caracalla Park - a good setting to harvest wind on New Alexandria's outskirts
</gallery>

This production looks to build on concepts of aesthetics, the subaltern and future imaginaries in the cultural studies of videogames. These include: future imaginaries surrounding energy security, and the aesthetics of future, urban, military, or rural renewable energy technology. This work will also consider the subsequent effects of: perceived canonical inconsistency and; affect (e.g. valorization, frustration, etc.) resulting from narrative. The Halo franchise will be used to situate the former, and the game Halo: Reach, for the Xbox360 will be used as a lens to explore the remaining concepts through its narrative-laden campaign mode. A novel contribution is made at the end of the discussion of futurism aesthetics. This is that inconsistent experimentation with a future imaginary aesthetic, produces a specific, visual, tokenism.

Halo: Reach’s opening level renders several small wind-energy harvesters across the landscape of what appears to be a dedicated farming planet (named Reach). This is familiar territory, as It is through this representation of a future setting that persuasion and direct engagement challenges are bypassed (Abraham 2018). Abraham’s work is based on the game ARMA 3, as an island setting which represented a number of large, centralized renewable energy facilities and systems (solar arrays, wind farms, etc.). One can argue that in reality, from a functional standpoint: rural communities, and – more specifically – household units are the setting for the most effective present implementations of renewable energy generation. Certainly, such units have been a major factor in the genesis, and growth in popularity of such technologies for pragmatic factors such as distance/inefficiency in traditional access of centralized systems, spatial seclusion, etc. Distributed, smaller-scale implementation such as on Reach is just as likely (if not more so) a scenario for near-future energy generation capacities, relative to large-scale facilities.

It is unclear whether some of Reach’s rural inhabitants (mostly unencountered due to evacuation) are permanent settlers, or if they are transient labourers in agriculture, or resource extraction. Though the farms, and shipping hubs portray technological sophistication/futurism, secure in their access to energy, they also communicate humble pragmatism. Structures make use of the natural landscape, rarely appearing out of place, and only seemingly connected by informal infrastructure such as dirt roads [see gallery figure 1]. This is reinforced by contrast with the introduction of an investigating Spartan team, their military technology at the fore. This technology includes vehicles and weapons which propel due to the work of diegetic, combustion-based mechanisms. Later in the game, Reach is revealed to have areas with more advanced industries and infrastructure, such as ship-building facilities, titanium mines, and large cities (like New Alexandria). Renewable energy seems fine for activities like farming or powering small rural dwellings, but strictly political-economic applications (such as military, or city operations) do not make overt use of this kind of energy. A colonial otherness thus contributes to the perception of a renewable energy tokenism. Simply defined: tokenism is a perfunctory or symbolic effort. Often it refers to instances of racialism and efforts to portray equality. It seems that tokenism is the antithesis, or saboteur of Ian Bogost’s & Mary Flanagan’s ideas of subversive video games. Generally, tokenism equates to some new venture, but ultimately plans not to achieve disruption or transformative effects of any significance, resulting in preservation of the status quo. 
Renewable energy tokenism pervades due to the omission of meaningful representations of military, or city-scale applications. There is a definite otherness to the rural treatment of renewable energy, which is somehow unable (or unwilling) to translate to urban settings – the traditional site of colonial power. Donald Schön states that “experiments should not “confirm” and “answer” to a challenge but affirm that challenge”. He also goes on to relate that computer science (game design included) is turning to a model of continuous dialogue between values and practice (Schön 1983). The modeling of futuristic, vertically-oriented wind turbines assets [see gallery figure 2] is valuable as an experiment of exposure to an imagined energy future. Designers do not need to necessarily valorize renewable energy, or a specific technology. However, in order to be a successful experiment, Halo: Reach’s designers require dialogue with a greater treatment of the scientific principles of experimental procedure. The enactment of tenets such as rigorous application, and adequate sampling, throughout the design of Halo: Reach would give the renewable energy imaginary its proper due.

Energy security is a particularly troubling topic when Reach is viewed as a prequel in the Halo franchise, as this was the first installment to represent renewable energy generation mechanisms in any detail. The canon of renewables in the franchise (used in the all-encompassing sense of zeitgeist, or orthodoxy) is thus fragmented. Audiences will view the omission of renewables (in chronologically earlier releases) as a loss of momentum for the fictional renewable energy industry/market. Economic inflections are common in video games. Baerg says that the procedural rhetoric of video games supports an economically inflected rationality behind the making of choices (Baerg 2009), and the example of Reach perhaps represents an economic-narrative element. Mukherjee made use of the concept of canon toward his definition of sub-altern amid postcolonial undertones in video games. Ultimately, subaltern is a concept concerned with writing history from below, but it often lacks a voice to articulate itself. This facility of articulation involves exercise of any number of powers such as political, social, or economic (Mukherjee 2018). Thus as a perceived element that was “phased out” in chronological Halo canon, renewable energy generation is made subaltern. From Reach to the next installment, questions arise about renewables’ economic, political, and/or social viability/tenability. The sort of precedence offered by a prequel takes on features of an articulation strategy known as the single story (SS). This is a narrative device that has supported colonial and postcolonial efforts, by retaining power and limiting articulation of native cultural voice (Adichie 2009). The Reach prequel thus imposes a narrative that shapes (and possibly changes) thoughts and beliefs about the overall canon. 
Even throughout a playthrough of Reach one questions renewables’ compatibility with urban-futurist aesthetics, or whether it is politically or economically scalable to city-, or military-scale use. The aesthetics of New Alexandria are affective. One can imagine living somewhere in these cities, making use of its many interconnected public squares, and plazas. They communicate clean minimalism, and the urban planning nears complete integration, but there is also tremendous opacity. One cannot glean (from the exterior) the program, or purpose of any individual building or cluster – including its energy need, or potential sources [see gallery figure 3]. The possible answer to the questions one develops about renewables (though never fully settled) is ever-present in the negative, by omission relative to the game’s opening experience with contrasting rural applications.
Far more extreme would be the gamer that extrapolates and attributes the narrative of the fall of Reach to some lack of preparedness, capability, or force associated with the presence or use of renewables. The player’s perspective as a Spartan that is equipped with gas-powered technology performs a valorization operation, and presents renewables as a weak, or ineffectual energy source by contrast. Keep in mind that Reach represented the first such engagement with the Covenant (one of the main enemy forces) in earth-controlled space and runs on an emotional narrative. The campaign always ends as an integrated cutscene with the player controlling the last remaining Spartan as the planet is ‘glassed’ by the victorious Covenant. Irrational responses and extreme associations therefore are to be expected. These sorts of classification of narrative represent an in for discussion of an interesting concept that is situated between climate science and urban planning. This concept is defensible drama (DD). In DD, emotional response is valued as an input toward personal behavioural, and collective change. Climate change simulations, and other rendered representations are situated against a backdrop of local contexts and are used to elicit the emotional response (Sheppard et al. 2008). DD represents an attempt to navigate a specific group-singular narrative but can also be perceived as single story articulation. Again, science and experimental rigor act as ‘fail-safes’ to concerns about this type of representation’s objectivity, accuracy, and ethical concerns.

'''References'''

Abraham (2018). “Video Game Visions of Climate Futures: ARMA 3 and Implications for Games and Persuasion” Games and Culture Vol. 13(1), pp. 71-91.

Adichie (2009). “The Danger of a Single Story” TedGlobal. Accessed at: https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story

Baerg (2009). “Governmentality, Neoliberalism, and the Digital Game” Symploke Vol. 17, pp. 115–127.

Mukherjee (2018). “Playing Subaltern” Games and Culture Vol. 13(5), pp. 504-520.

Schön (1983). “Reflective Practice”. Basic Books New York

Sheppard (2008). “Can Visualisation Save the World? - Lessons for Landscape Architects from Visualizing Local Climate Change”. Accessed at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255570495_Can_Visualisation_Save_the_World_-_Lessons_for_Landscape_Architects_from_Visualizing_Local_Climate_Change

== Meta-Reading Notes ==
Coming soon (working on digitization)...

== Other Content ==
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTOXDnX-HA Edmund's Game Proposal 7/2/2019]

(Forgot to mention '''Possible tools!''')

RPGmaker: for easy/built-in item, or resource manager

Unity: 3D/more visual detail, agent pathfinding (for if a Pikmin-style game)

'''Reference Links:'''

[https://www.catan.com/game/catan-scenarios-oil-springs Catan OilSprings Expansion]

[https://www.pcgamesn.com/hellblade-senuas-sacrifice/hellblade-documentary Hellblade Article]

== My UserPage ==
[https://www.refugeesrespond.org/dadaabwikimedia/index.php?title=User:Edmund]

Edmund's Page

2019-04-04T21:01:01Z

Edmund: /* Production 4 */

== Production 2 ==

Flow was mentioned a few times throughout Bogost’s book. Having already read some work on the topic of flow, I felt it would be useful to dedicate a separate chapter to its coverage. Bogost referenced an important work on flow by Csikszentmihalyi, and used the term in sections dealing with relaxation, and to a lesser degree in the 'Music' and 'Transit' sections. The latter's mention was albeit, more likely based on a logistical definition such as when referring to traffic rates and volumes of people or goods.

B’s ‘Music’ section, however, is a useful “in” to understanding flow due to its emphasis on timing, and various embodiments. This is supported in athletic, and musical performance literature which espouses the benefits of flow-like states, and recommends rhythmic breathing, and other auditory devices. Many videogamers may find such training and strategies useful as well.

Cz's concept of flow can certainly account for relaxation, and performance. These exist along axes of challenge, and skill (see the diagram).
[[File:File_Challenge_vs_skill_svg_Wikipedia.png|200px|thumb|left|alt text]]
His and other work, also provide first hand accounts which begin to describe flow as a state of unison between body and mind. Other definitions include great concentration, or absorption in an activity at hand.

B's book abounds on many of video games’ experiential aspects. Maybe this is largely subjective (and contrary to what gamification consultants may say), or perhaps there are common aspects of videogames - such as art, music, or kitsch which can appeal (relax, worry, bore, arouse, etc.) broadly.

The general skill requirement of videogames often centres on manipulation of inputs towards an algorithmic end (winning a point, moving an avatar etc.). These inputs consist of embodied activities such as precise, ordered manipulation of buttons, joysticks, or other devices. The activities themselves, are notably similar to the inputs required in the performance of many musical instruments. Furthermore, whatever might be occurring in-game impresses its own 'reading' challenges as well, and imposes strategic challenges, and an embodied demand of quick input reactions. Exercise games are an especially interesting subset of games, which no doubt increase the physical demand of challenge, skill, and perhaps enjoyment as well.

From discussion of players and roles we know that anyone can fill the protagonists' shoes. Gaming communities are starting to become interested in watching and engaging with these players. Consider the growth in popularity of game streaming and tournament broadcasts. Much like athletic, or musical prowess, flow is an ever-present personal state, or quality. Consequently, flow provides equal opportunity for entertainment and (along with some notable social skills and other factors) is capable of drawing a crowd. The old adage says something along the lines of “it’s not important whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game”. Some of the week 3 reading (Nolan & McBride, etc.) helped shed some light on superficial game-based learning, and gamification. Interest in competition may always remain (wins and losses), but what is starting to compete with results for interest, is the players behind the competition, and their own unique “brand” of play. Put simply, audiences are becoming curious, and captivated by ''how'' certain players play.

== Production 3 ==
This week’s production is roughly split into two sections. These are connections between the trials of the hack-a-game game, and the workshop/game design literature; and an extension of the critique of gamification in digital game-based learning (DGBL).

Fullerton’s book outlines some practical considerations for game design. Communication is listed early on, as “the most important skill” (Fullerton 2008, 5) that designers can develop. This rang true in practice, as nearly all of the activities of the game-hacking exercise with the Space Race game focused on communication. In addition to being most prevalent, it was also the most challenging, and rewarding activity. It was largely unstructured, and undocumented. This may have been appropriate for a small group of first-timers, but one does wonder to what degree such communication is ‘organic’ in professional practice. Fullerton also includes a section dedicated to team communication, and lists formal meetings, or less formal (but still organized) ‘scrums’ as good communication structures. Furthermore Fullerton identifies a set of common specifications, or documents being a big part of the design team’s work, and listed it as key to ‘standardizing’ communication (Fullerton 2008, 15). One can certainly imagine the added challenges if in our relatively ‘fluid’ hack of Space Race, the three designers also approached from different ‘angles’ (e.g. education/background, competencies, vocabulary, etc.).

The Design Process of the hack-a-game game trial was similarly fluid, and seems describable by some combination of playercentric, and iterative. In a way, the trial group did not consider player experience early enough in the process – something Fullerton would prefer (Fullerton 2008, 10-11) – but it seemed to emerge through iteration. A good example is when the group discovered they had greatly extended the length of the game, and reactively swapped scoring, for a ‘last-goal-wins’ mechanic. It is possible that the team was rather lucky with the ‘path’ of hacks chosen. Perhaps an initial idea was not so foundational, and thus did not end up pigeon-holing any subsequent ideas (i.e. into a similar theme, mechanic, etc.). Imagining the Process as an infinity of possible hack-decisions at the outset: surely some of these decisions take on a ‘tree-limb’, or fractal form. For example, decision 1, may only allow for a series of 1a,b,c decisions, and precludes additional decisions of 2, 3, … n. Another point to consider as part of the Process, is that this trial of the hack-a-game game involved an analog game, and therefore required little computational literacy. Certain functions, and conditionals were instantiated, and modified in analog – and it is likely that a digital Design Process would be affected by the group’s competency of enacting these (most certainly in speed, or number of possible hack tests) in a digital format.

In transitioning to a discussion of DGBL, there are opinions, research, and policy which exist on a spectrum between full support, or opposition. One of these is the concept of digital natives, and their perceived (yet not wholly proven) skill with digital technologies. Other supportive arguments seem clear-cut but are murky in their own right. Researchers such as diSessa and Wing see that there “is a growing acknowledgement among educational researchers, computer scientists and teachers that “computational thinking” and algorithmic logic ought to be considered a kind of “core literacy”” (Jenson & Droumeva, 2017). Broadly conceived, an algorithm is a process of problem solving. Is there any risk/complication associated with learning computer science principles through gameplay/design ''only'', especially at a young age? Further to this, one might question if lusory attitudes (an important facet of game play, and development) may be coopted for the facilitation of certain curricula. Bernard Suits defines a lusory attitude as “the player’s adoption of the rule-set of a game” (Nolan & McBride 2014, 599). One specific concern is the potential tension (or worse – passivity) which may result between critical thinking (e.g. challenging norms, questioning society, etc.) and the installation of a series of DGBL rule-sets. This is especially concerning given education’s historical mandate of preparing students for future careers, and curricula around ‘making’ with technology that are purportedly built on an “understanding of the ''good things''” (emphasis added) (Thumlert et al. 2018, 705). At times, this has amounted to little more than superficial ‘gamification’, essentially only serving to extend a curricular desire for another form of accounting. Gamification can and has been installed into professional work settings with varying degrees of success, but it is not yet clear what implications may exist for these so-called digital natives who are soon to enter the workforce.

'''References'''

Fullerton (2008). “Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games”. ''Elsevier''

Jenson & Droumeva (2017). “Revisiting the Media Generation: Youth Media Use and Computational Literacy instruction”.
''E-Learning and Digital Media.'' Vol. 14(4), pp. 212-225.

Nolan & McBride (2014). “Beyond Gamification: Reconceptualizing Game Based Learning in Early Childhood Environments.”
''Information, Communication & Society.'' Vol. 17(5), pp. 594-608.

Thumlert et al. (2018). “Learning Through Game Design: A Production Pedagogy”. ''Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Game-Based Learning ECGBL''

== Production 4 ==
Option 2: De-Composing Runescape

Some brief background: Runescape is a popular MMORPG. Roughly 2000 players can be accommodated on a single game world (server), with an instantaneous average of 100,000 active players (MisplacedMe 2019). A players’ first actions consist of modifying the appearance of their avatar ‘character’ and completing a tutorial of the major facets of the game.

The premise of the game is multifaceted (combat, quest completion/puzzle-solving, construction, mini-games etc.) with an underlying economic resource production/management theme. It is set in the realm of Gielinor – best described as a stylized medieval earth that features fantasy elements (think: Martin’s continental setting for the Game of Thrones series, or Tolkien’s setting of Middle Earth).
Implicit in the combat, and resource gathering mechanics is a sense of linear progression from reality-inspired, to fantasy-inspired. This perhaps parallels a model of scientific innovation, ''or'' historical “ages” of production that connote some ‘better’ performance. For example, the earliest accessible metals (bronze or iron) correspond to a low level of combat weapon damage, or armour protection, and resource gathering speed/efficiency. Higher level, better performing metals consist of adamant (‘borrowed’ from mythology, and Marvel comics lore), rune, and dragon (‘proprietary’), to name a few. The association of linear progress with performance/efficiency may reinforce a few pedagogies about innovation (e.g. it always or is only to be found in the future).

The rule sets and systems are conceptually quite simple. They are made complex or dynamic by the interactions (or lack thereof*) with other players or non-player characters.

The primary mechanic is movement. It is constrained to an orthogonal grid within the player’s field of view, and performed through clicking a chosen destination. A pathfinding routine is then called, and the player’s movement is animated. This is one of the earliest remaining ‘foundational’ elements of Runescape and has influenced gameplay in numerous ways. Foremost, it rewards exploration into the unknown – the initial location of the game caters to learning, and low-level play. Furthermore, over time and with practice, players discover how to manipulate pathfinding mechanics, and (more importantly) that of NPCs. A key combat skill (but one that may never be formalized through the tutorial) is the ability to attract and trap an aggressive NPC or player behind obstacles or barriers. This brings to mind Fullerton’s suggestions about playtesting. It is entirely possible that Runescape’s original designer – Andrew Gower envisioned rigid ‘to the death’ combat scenarios (valuing preparation, and strategy). However, player tendencies (e.g. curiosity and exploration) led to a more dynamic conception of strategy, which added flight, and avoidance to fight events. Flexibility and a willingness to adapt have allowed this rather unique tactic to flourish as a somewhat tacit aspect of Runescape culture.

There are no explicit win conditions, save for the narrative-laden Quests that a player may opt to begin. Goals, and win-conditions are largely self-determined. Some view skill mastery as a goal (i.e. “maxing out”), while others may choose to try and maximize their resources, defeat other players in combat, attain certain items, complete quests, play mini-games, or socialize. There is an explicit loss condition when a player loses all of their health points. This results in a ‘respawn’ where all new players enter the game (a relatively safe location), and (depending on the circumstances of their death) possible loss of held items. Other implied ‘losses’ include poor investment, or receiving disciplinary actions (such as mutes, or account bans).
Another important mechanic is the random number generator (RNG) and drop tables. Greater skill accumulation (in combat or resource-gathering skills) results in better position along the mentioned performance/”age” line. However, in order to maintain interest, and/or competitive balance an element of randomness is introduced to most activities via RNG. The RNG-driven drop tables also greatly impact the game economy. That is, it determines the probable amounts of resources and items that ‘enter’ the game through player actions.

One instance of gameplay based on relative isolation (in contrast to interaction) is worth mentioning. The developers noticed a trend emerging (The Runescape Wiki 2014): For whatever reason (added challenge, etc.) players would not engage in trade with others. Instead they would look to ‘perform’ the game under a self-imposed ruleset of self-sufficiency. This led to the official instantiation of the Iron(wo)man game mode, with official restrictions and an accompanying player title.

'''Update'''

The following are some ideas that expand the discussion to include some of the learning content and readings. Concepts about digital games and situated learning/cognition come out via the movement-exploration mechanic of RS. Controlling the avatar character allows for a learning that is "an outcome of the interaction between an individual and the environment or social setting" (Marone, 4). In addition to being a primary driver of narrative, movement and exploration via the player character avatar also produce a hybridization with the player user. This is further supported by other facets of the game such as the extensive customization of avatar aesthetics, which serve to visually connect player and avatar. A nice, combined example of visual, movement-based hybridization is also present in the game in the form of gestures known as emotes. Examples include waving, cheering, thinking or various skill-related emotes. Most emotes can be used for various non-textual communications with other players or NPCs.

Declarative knowledge application (though there are a few examples) recedes into the background of RS for the most part, while procedural knowledge tends to come to the fore.
The tacit movement skills, such as the barrier trapping mentioned above, illustrate a procedural knowledge application. Though it can be communicated, it still is relatively non-declarative. A case of "you know it when you see it". Successful application requires ''performance'', but few probably understand or even know of the underlying mechanics of a pathfinding algorithm. Anecdotally: 'luck' and observation may play a major role as conditions for this type of learning, unless the player has the benefit of social connection with existing players. Still, it is one of those digital skills/activities for which successful performance might be based on a feel, and reflexive response to certain visual cues, rather than adherence to strict instruction.

Relatively recently - developer and community posts began to refer to the RNG's role in the item-drop, or "loot" system (in response to player community curiosity). Shortly after - either out of comedy, ignorance, etc. - players have since coined the phrase "I used up all my RNG" to refer to an instance or series of perceived "bad luck" where RNG is thought to play a part. Regardless of its inaccuracy, this phrase may be grounded in some sort of declarative knowledge about probabilities, yet its use is entirely grounded in procedural knowledge (i.e. prior experience of dynamically determined probable outcomes).
Attempts to make procedural probability knowledge declarative are ongoing both in/outside of the game. Within: developers have released statistical tracking add-ons, that can help a player manage personal probabilistic data. Outwith: community sites (including wikis) attempt to perform the same knowledge gathering - but with it wholly determined (i.e. composed of multiple players' contributed data).

'''References'''

MisplacedMe (2019). “Runescape Player Count by Qtr Hr" Accessed at: http://www.misplaceditems.com/rs_tools/graph/

The Runescape Wiki (2014). "Ironman & Drop Table Reworks" Accessed at: https://runescape.fandom.com/wiki/Update:Ironman_%26_Drop_Table_Reworks

Marone (2016). "Playful Constructivism: Making Sense of Digital Games for Learning and Creativity Through Play, Design, and Participation" ''Journal of Virtual Worlds Research'' Vol. 9(3).

== Production 5 ==
Opt. 2: Play/Games definition a la H & C + Investigation via a Game

Personally, my favorite concept which represents play is that its nature cannot be determined and/or explained through scientific principles, and modes of investigation. Perhaps related, is play’s lack of moral function (Huizinga, 102). Play is also primary. I use primary in the sense of cognitive, but also evolutionary development in the same spirit as when Huizinga and Caillois refer to young children and animals. Primary often connotes an inferiority relative to the more-developed (not a sentiment I agree with mind you, i.e. “simple is hard”; “K.I.S.S.”; etc.). The notion of more-developed (anti-play) manifests as serious, daily-life, or boring types of activities. Usually these activities (even in complex examples like serious play) hinge on some aspect of society, or culture (e.g. economy, social status/class, etc.). I recall reading some research – I cannot remember the exact field, but perhaps it was psychology – that put forth an interesting finding. That is that biological adults needing to perform serious, and “adult” activities (and more importantly, to be ''seen performing'' these activities) indicates a fundamentally childish characteristic, or desire. Note: that this extension of play vs. seriousness includes this research not as an indictment of adult-serious, or play-childish executive function. It is more meant to question the performativity of play vs. seriousness, and the rigid linear model that is always applied to what is clearly a subjective spectrum composed of multiple factors such as enjoyment, and utility. Consider that some experience a genuinely dizzying vertigo from the play of effective accounting. Some approach it as a mimetic activity that straddles play/the serious. Yet some others treat it as an entirely boring, serious activity.
Thus Caillois’ work is helpful as a framework for what might be termed ''applications of play''. Furthermore, these applications are self- or co-determined expressions. Obviously this definition requires additional research, and distillation, and may be best openly presented as an ongoing exercise.

Therefore: 
Play is a primary application of subjective, or ''labile'' expression. It is devoid of moral function, and relatively slippery for analysis by systematic, rational modes of enquiry.

The game I will test this definition upon, is Halo: Reach (HR). The game features a variety of ludus and paidia according to various modes of play. There a number of game modes ranging from the story-driven campaign, to survival scenarios, to custom, and competitive multiplayer. I will explore some of the game mechanics, and coded preferences for subjective expression which can be controlled by a player to some extent. The best “in” to these mechanics is through HR’s multiplayer-mode “matchmaking” system. In addition to persistent local area network (LAN) multiplayer, HR is the third installment of the franchise which features online competitive/co-operative game play. In this installment, players are able to tailor their probable player network for the next game they join, based on four qualities under the banner of ‘Psych Profile’: 
Chattiness. Binary option for preference of chatty, or quiet teammates. 
Motivation. Binary option for preference of winning, or good-time seeking teammates. 
Teamwork. Binary option for preference of team player, or lone wolf teammates. 
Tone. Binary option for preference of rowdy, or polite chatting teammates. 

Multiplayer games offer various outlets for social expression, and rules and social controls (such as the psych profile) serve to introduce lability and customization of the player experience. While being a very play-centric concept, it also hits on the above definition’s caveat of lack of moral function. HR’s social controls remove certain groups of players. This brings to mind exclusionary practices, which are certainly prevalent in games of all types, and often made explicit in the case of childrens’ turbulent and lusory attitudes to preference setting. It is not uncommon to hear of games which restrict participation from the outset (or even during play) for apt, or arbitrary reasons. For example, potential players may be excluded from a game for reasons of social status, their hygienic perception, so-called “competitive balance”, or any other indicator. In HR social controls are based on indicators which are quantified and referred to as metrics. The social control condition of play thus shifts from being based in public personal/co-determined subjective opinion, or objective truths – to a digital environment that enforces social relations in a private, probabilistic manner.

It is perhaps ironic, that the campaign narrative, which is structured around a variety of individual team-member play styles does not allow for the same dynamic preference setting as the multiplayer match-making experience. One may engage in prescribed teamwork-, or ‘lone-wolf-’ style campaign missions, but can rarely break the mould, or effect AI/NPC social traits such as chattiness or motivation. In addition to network customization, HR offers play as a medium for subjective expression by (an albeit limited) customization of the player’s multiplayer avatar. These customizations effect many forms of expression such as gender, voice (patterned after some campaign characters) as well as the player’s armour form, colour, and markings. Furthermore, customizations can include capabilities which affect the competitive quality or style of play. A player may select one default special ability or swap them at will in certain games modes. This leads to a relatively unknown element in multiplayer matches in terms of specific ability distribution. This is perhaps the developers’ best effort at introducing a dynamic means of expression which varies based on different interactions with the game as a system.

An interesting claim provided in the explanation of multiplayer network settings is that (in all cases): “changing preferred [setting] will not affect search times.” This is perhaps an indication of the contemporary developer wisdom which suggests that players value a gaming experience with little down-time between games/rounds. If the disclaimer is accepted as true, it also may indicate that the valuation of speed exceeds that of these various social qualities.

Huizinga (1955). “Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Homo Ludens) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via Beacon Press.''

Caillois (1961). “The Definition of Play and The Classification of Games”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Man, Play and Games) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via University of Illinois Press''

== Production 7 ==
<gallery>
File:Reach-Farmhouse.jpg|Fig. 1- Reach Farmhouse
File:Reach-Turbines.jpg|Fig. 2- Rural Wind Turbines
File:Caracalla park(Tacitus Halopedia).jpg|Fig. 3- Caracalla Park - a good setting to harvest wind on New Alexandria's outskirts
</gallery>

This production looks to build on concepts of aesthetics, the subaltern and future imaginaries in the cultural studies of videogames. These include: future imaginaries surrounding energy security, and the aesthetics of future, urban, military, or rural renewable energy technology. This work will also consider the subsequent effects of: perceived canonical inconsistency and; affect (e.g. valorization, frustration, etc.) resulting from narrative. The Halo franchise will be used to situate the former, and the game Halo: Reach, for the Xbox360 will be used as a lens to explore the remaining concepts through its narrative-laden campaign mode. A novel contribution is made at the end of the discussion of futurism aesthetics. This is that inconsistent experimentation with a future imaginary aesthetic, produces a specific, visual, tokenism.

Halo: Reach’s opening level renders several small wind-energy harvesters across the landscape of what appears to be a dedicated farming planet (named Reach). This is familiar territory, as It is through this representation of a future setting that persuasion and direct engagement challenges are bypassed (Abraham 2018). Abraham’s work is based on the game ARMA 3, as an island setting which represented a number of large, centralized renewable energy facilities and systems (solar arrays, wind farms, etc.). One can argue that in reality, from a functional standpoint: rural communities, and – more specifically – household units are the setting for the most effective present implementations of renewable energy generation. Certainly, such units have been a major factor in the genesis, and growth in popularity of such technologies for pragmatic factors such as distance/inefficiency in traditional access of centralized systems, spatial seclusion, etc. Distributed, smaller-scale implementation such as on Reach is just as likely (if not more so) a scenario for near-future energy generation capacities, relative to large-scale facilities.

It is unclear whether some of Reach’s rural inhabitants (mostly unencountered due to evacuation) are permanent settlers, or if they are transient labourers in agriculture, or resource extraction. Though the farms, and shipping hubs portray technological sophistication/futurism, secure in their access to energy, they also communicate humble pragmatism. Structures make use of the natural landscape, rarely appearing out of place, and only seemingly connected by informal infrastructure such as dirt roads [see gallery figure 1]. This is reinforced by contrast with the introduction of an investigating Spartan team, their military technology at the fore. This technology includes vehicles and weapons which propel due to the work of diegetic, combustion-based mechanisms. Later in the game, Reach is revealed to have areas with more advanced industries and infrastructure, such as ship-building facilities, titanium mines, and large cities (like New Alexandria). Renewable energy seems fine for activities like farming or powering small rural dwellings, but strictly political-economic applications (such as military, or city operations) do not make overt use of this kind of energy. A colonial otherness thus contributes to the perception of a renewable energy tokenism. Simply defined: tokenism is a perfunctory or symbolic effort. Often it refers to instances of racialism and efforts to portray equality. It seems that tokenism is the antithesis, or saboteur of Ian Bogost’s & Mary Flanagan’s ideas of subversive video games. Generally, tokenism equates to some new venture, but ultimately plans not to achieve disruption or transformative effects of any significance, resulting in preservation of the status quo. 
Renewable energy tokenism pervades due to the omission of meaningful representations of military, or city-scale applications. There is a definite otherness to the rural treatment of renewable energy, which is somehow unable (or unwilling) to translate to urban settings – the traditional site of colonial power. Donald Schön states that “experiments should not “confirm” and “answer” to a challenge but affirm that challenge”. He also goes on to relate that computer science (game design included) is turning to a model of continuous dialogue between values and practice (Schön 1983). The modeling of futuristic, vertically-oriented wind turbines assets [see gallery figure 2] is valuable as an experiment of exposure to an imagined energy future. Designers do not need to necessarily valorize renewable energy, or a specific technology. However, in order to be a successful experiment, Halo: Reach’s designers require dialogue with a greater treatment of the scientific principles of experimental procedure. The enactment of tenets such as rigorous application, and adequate sampling, throughout the design of Halo: Reach would give the renewable energy imaginary its proper due.

Energy security is a particularly troubling topic when Reach is viewed as a prequel in the Halo franchise, as this was the first installment to represent renewable energy generation mechanisms in any detail. The canon of renewables in the franchise (used in the all-encompassing sense of zeitgeist, or orthodoxy) is thus fragmented. Audiences will view the omission of renewables (in chronologically earlier releases) as a loss of momentum for the fictional renewable energy industry/market. Economic inflections are common in video games. Baerg says that the procedural rhetoric of video games supports an economically inflected rationality behind the making of choices (Baerg 2009), and the example of Reach perhaps represents an economic-narrative element. Mukherjee made use of the concept of canon toward his definition of sub-altern amid postcolonial undertones in video games. Ultimately, subaltern is a concept concerned with writing history from below, but it often lacks a voice to articulate itself. This facility of articulation involves exercise of any number of powers such as political, social, or economic (Mukherjee 2018). Thus as a perceived element that was “phased out” in chronological Halo canon, renewable energy generation is made subaltern. From Reach to the next installment, questions arise about renewables’ economic, political, and/or social viability/tenability. The sort of precedence offered by a prequel takes on features of an articulation strategy known as the single story (SS). This is a narrative device that has supported colonial and postcolonial efforts, by retaining power and limiting articulation of native cultural voice (Adichie 2009). The Reach prequel thus imposes a narrative that shapes (and possibly changes) thoughts and beliefs about the overall canon. 
Even throughout a playthrough of Reach one questions renewables’ compatibility with urban-futurist aesthetics, or whether it is politically or economically scalable to city-, or military-scale use. The aesthetics of New Alexandria are affective. One can imagine living somewhere in these cities, making use of its many interconnected public squares, and plazas. They communicate clean minimalism, and the urban planning nears complete integration, but there is also tremendous opacity. One cannot glean (from the exterior) the program, or purpose of any individual building or cluster – including its energy need, or potential sources [see gallery figure 3]. The possible answer to the questions one develops about renewables (though never fully settled) is ever-present in the negative, by omission relative to the game’s opening experience with contrasting rural applications.
Far more extreme would be the gamer that extrapolates and attributes the narrative of the fall of Reach to some lack of preparedness, capability, or force associated with the presence or use of renewables. The player’s perspective as a Spartan that is equipped with gas-powered technology performs a valorization operation, and presents renewables as a weak, or ineffectual energy source by contrast. Keep in mind that Reach represented the first such engagement with the Covenant (one of the main enemy forces) in earth-controlled space and runs on an emotional narrative. The campaign always ends as an integrated cutscene with the player controlling the last remaining Spartan as the planet is ‘glassed’ by the victorious Covenant. Irrational responses and extreme associations therefore are to be expected. These sorts of classification of narrative represent an in for discussion of an interesting concept that is situated between climate science and urban planning. This concept is defensible drama (DD). In DD, emotional response is valued as an input toward personal behavioural, and collective change. Climate change simulations, and other rendered representations are situated against a backdrop of local contexts and are used to elicit the emotional response (Sheppard et al. 2008). DD represents an attempt to navigate a specific group-singular narrative but can also be perceived as single story articulation. Again, science and experimental rigor act as ‘fail-safes’ to concerns about this type of representation’s objectivity, accuracy, and ethical concerns.

'''References'''

Abraham (2018). “Video Game Visions of Climate Futures: ARMA 3 and Implications for Games and Persuasion” Games and Culture Vol. 13(1), pp. 71-91.

Adichie (2009). “The Danger of a Single Story” TedGlobal. Accessed at: https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story

Baerg (2009). “Governmentality, Neoliberalism, and the Digital Game” Symploke Vol. 17, pp. 115–127.

Mukherjee (2018). “Playing Subaltern” Games and Culture Vol. 13(5), pp. 504-520.

Schön (1983). “Reflective Practice”. Basic Books New York

Sheppard (2008). “Can Visualisation Save the World? - Lessons for Landscape Architects from Visualizing Local Climate Change”. Accessed at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255570495_Can_Visualisation_Save_the_World_-_Lessons_for_Landscape_Architects_from_Visualizing_Local_Climate_Change

== Meta-Reading Notes ==
Coming soon (working on digitization)...

== Other Content ==
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTOXDnX-HA Edmund's Game Proposal 7/2/2019]

(Forgot to mention '''Possible tools!''')

RPGmaker: for easy/built-in item, or resource manager

Unity: 3D/more visual detail, agent pathfinding (for if a Pikmin-style game)

'''Reference Links:'''

[https://www.catan.com/game/catan-scenarios-oil-springs Catan OilSprings Expansion]

[https://www.pcgamesn.com/hellblade-senuas-sacrifice/hellblade-documentary Hellblade Article]

== My UserPage ==
[https://www.refugeesrespond.org/dadaabwikimedia/index.php?title=User:Edmund]

Edmund's Page

2019-04-04T21:00:37Z

Edmund:

== Production 2 ==

Flow was mentioned a few times throughout Bogost’s book. Having already read some work on the topic of flow, I felt it would be useful to dedicate a separate chapter to its coverage. Bogost referenced an important work on flow by Csikszentmihalyi, and used the term in sections dealing with relaxation, and to a lesser degree in the 'Music' and 'Transit' sections. The latter's mention was albeit, more likely based on a logistical definition such as when referring to traffic rates and volumes of people or goods.

B’s ‘Music’ section, however, is a useful “in” to understanding flow due to its emphasis on timing, and various embodiments. This is supported in athletic, and musical performance literature which espouses the benefits of flow-like states, and recommends rhythmic breathing, and other auditory devices. Many videogamers may find such training and strategies useful as well.

Cz's concept of flow can certainly account for relaxation, and performance. These exist along axes of challenge, and skill (see the diagram).
[[File:File_Challenge_vs_skill_svg_Wikipedia.png|200px|thumb|left|alt text]]
His and other work, also provide first hand accounts which begin to describe flow as a state of unison between body and mind. Other definitions include great concentration, or absorption in an activity at hand.

B's book abounds on many of video games’ experiential aspects. Maybe this is largely subjective (and contrary to what gamification consultants may say), or perhaps there are common aspects of videogames - such as art, music, or kitsch which can appeal (relax, worry, bore, arouse, etc.) broadly.

The general skill requirement of videogames often centres on manipulation of inputs towards an algorithmic end (winning a point, moving an avatar etc.). These inputs consist of embodied activities such as precise, ordered manipulation of buttons, joysticks, or other devices. The activities themselves, are notably similar to the inputs required in the performance of many musical instruments. Furthermore, whatever might be occurring in-game impresses its own 'reading' challenges as well, and imposes strategic challenges, and an embodied demand of quick input reactions. Exercise games are an especially interesting subset of games, which no doubt increase the physical demand of challenge, skill, and perhaps enjoyment as well.

From discussion of players and roles we know that anyone can fill the protagonists' shoes. Gaming communities are starting to become interested in watching and engaging with these players. Consider the growth in popularity of game streaming and tournament broadcasts. Much like athletic, or musical prowess, flow is an ever-present personal state, or quality. Consequently, flow provides equal opportunity for entertainment and (along with some notable social skills and other factors) is capable of drawing a crowd. The old adage says something along the lines of “it’s not important whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game”. Some of the week 3 reading (Nolan & McBride, etc.) helped shed some light on superficial game-based learning, and gamification. Interest in competition may always remain (wins and losses), but what is starting to compete with results for interest, is the players behind the competition, and their own unique “brand” of play. Put simply, audiences are becoming curious, and captivated by ''how'' certain players play.

== Production 3 ==
This week’s production is roughly split into two sections. These are connections between the trials of the hack-a-game game, and the workshop/game design literature; and an extension of the critique of gamification in digital game-based learning (DGBL).

Fullerton’s book outlines some practical considerations for game design. Communication is listed early on, as “the most important skill” (Fullerton 2008, 5) that designers can develop. This rang true in practice, as nearly all of the activities of the game-hacking exercise with the Space Race game focused on communication. In addition to being most prevalent, it was also the most challenging, and rewarding activity. It was largely unstructured, and undocumented. This may have been appropriate for a small group of first-timers, but one does wonder to what degree such communication is ‘organic’ in professional practice. Fullerton also includes a section dedicated to team communication, and lists formal meetings, or less formal (but still organized) ‘scrums’ as good communication structures. Furthermore Fullerton identifies a set of common specifications, or documents being a big part of the design team’s work, and listed it as key to ‘standardizing’ communication (Fullerton 2008, 15). One can certainly imagine the added challenges if in our relatively ‘fluid’ hack of Space Race, the three designers also approached from different ‘angles’ (e.g. education/background, competencies, vocabulary, etc.).

The Design Process of the hack-a-game game trial was similarly fluid, and seems describable by some combination of playercentric, and iterative. In a way, the trial group did not consider player experience early enough in the process – something Fullerton would prefer (Fullerton 2008, 10-11) – but it seemed to emerge through iteration. A good example is when the group discovered they had greatly extended the length of the game, and reactively swapped scoring, for a ‘last-goal-wins’ mechanic. It is possible that the team was rather lucky with the ‘path’ of hacks chosen. Perhaps an initial idea was not so foundational, and thus did not end up pigeon-holing any subsequent ideas (i.e. into a similar theme, mechanic, etc.). Imagining the Process as an infinity of possible hack-decisions at the outset: surely some of these decisions take on a ‘tree-limb’, or fractal form. For example, decision 1, may only allow for a series of 1a,b,c decisions, and precludes additional decisions of 2, 3, … n. Another point to consider as part of the Process, is that this trial of the hack-a-game game involved an analog game, and therefore required little computational literacy. Certain functions, and conditionals were instantiated, and modified in analog – and it is likely that a digital Design Process would be affected by the group’s competency of enacting these (most certainly in speed, or number of possible hack tests) in a digital format.

In transitioning to a discussion of DGBL, there are opinions, research, and policy which exist on a spectrum between full support, or opposition. One of these is the concept of digital natives, and their perceived (yet not wholly proven) skill with digital technologies. Other supportive arguments seem clear-cut but are murky in their own right. Researchers such as diSessa and Wing see that there “is a growing acknowledgement among educational researchers, computer scientists and teachers that “computational thinking” and algorithmic logic ought to be considered a kind of “core literacy”” (Jenson & Droumeva, 2017). Broadly conceived, an algorithm is a process of problem solving. Is there any risk/complication associated with learning computer science principles through gameplay/design ''only'', especially at a young age? Further to this, one might question if lusory attitudes (an important facet of game play, and development) may be coopted for the facilitation of certain curricula. Bernard Suits defines a lusory attitude as “the player’s adoption of the rule-set of a game” (Nolan & McBride 2014, 599). One specific concern is the potential tension (or worse – passivity) which may result between critical thinking (e.g. challenging norms, questioning society, etc.) and the installation of a series of DGBL rule-sets. This is especially concerning given education’s historical mandate of preparing students for future careers, and curricula around ‘making’ with technology that are purportedly built on an “understanding of the ''good things''” (emphasis added) (Thumlert et al. 2018, 705). At times, this has amounted to little more than superficial ‘gamification’, essentially only serving to extend a curricular desire for another form of accounting. Gamification can and has been installed into professional work settings with varying degrees of success, but it is not yet clear what implications may exist for these so-called digital natives who are soon to enter the workforce.

'''References'''

Fullerton (2008). “Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games”. ''Elsevier''

Jenson & Droumeva (2017). “Revisiting the Media Generation: Youth Media Use and Computational Literacy instruction”.
''E-Learning and Digital Media.'' Vol. 14(4), pp. 212-225.

Nolan & McBride (2014). “Beyond Gamification: Reconceptualizing Game Based Learning in Early Childhood Environments.”
''Information, Communication & Society.'' Vol. 17(5), pp. 594-608.

Thumlert et al. (2018). “Learning Through Game Design: A Production Pedagogy”. ''Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Game-Based Learning ECGBL''

== Production 4 ==
Option 2: De-Composing Runescape

Some brief background: Runescape is a popular MMORPG. Roughly 2000 players can be accommodated on a single game world (server), with an instantaneous average of 100,000 active players (MisplacedMe 2019). A players’ first actions consist of modifying the appearance of their avatar ‘character’ and completing a tutorial of the major facets of the game.

The premise of the game is multifaceted (combat, quest completion/puzzle-solving, construction, mini-games etc.) with an underlying economic resource production/management theme. It is set in the realm of Gielinor – best described as a stylized medieval earth that features fantasy elements (think: Martin’s continental setting for the Game of Thrones series, or Tolkien’s setting of Middle Earth).
Implicit in the combat, and resource gathering mechanics is a sense of linear progression from reality-inspired, to fantasy-inspired. This perhaps parallels a model of scientific innovation, ''or'' historical “ages” of production that connote some ‘better’ performance. For example, the earliest accessible metals (bronze or iron) correspond to a low level of combat weapon damage, or armour protection, and resource gathering speed/efficiency. Higher level, better performing metals consist of adamant (‘borrowed’ from mythology, and Marvel comics lore), rune, and dragon (‘proprietary’), to name a few. The association of linear progress with performance/efficiency may reinforce a few pedagogies about innovation (e.g. it always or is only to be found in the future).

The rule sets and systems are conceptually quite simple. They are made complex or dynamic by the interactions (or lack thereof*) with other players or non-player characters.

The primary mechanic is movement. It is constrained to an orthogonal grid within the player’s field of view, and performed through clicking a chosen destination. A pathfinding routine is then called, and the player’s movement is animated. This is one of the earliest remaining ‘foundational’ elements of Runescape and has influenced gameplay in numerous ways. Foremost, it rewards exploration into the unknown – the initial location of the game caters to learning, and low-level play. Furthermore, over time and with practice, players discover how to manipulate pathfinding mechanics, and (more importantly) that of NPCs. A key combat skill (but one that may never be formalized through the tutorial) is the ability to attract and trap an aggressive NPC or player behind obstacles or barriers. This brings to mind Fullerton’s suggestions about playtesting. It is entirely possible that Runescape’s original designer – Andrew Gower envisioned rigid ‘to the death’ combat scenarios (valuing preparation, and strategy). However, player tendencies (e.g. curiosity and exploration) led to a more dynamic conception of strategy, which added flight, and avoidance to fight events. Flexibility and a willingness to adapt have allowed this rather unique tactic to flourish as a somewhat tacit aspect of Runescape culture.

There are no explicit win conditions, save for the narrative-laden Quests that a player may opt to begin. Goals, and win-conditions are largely self-determined. Some view skill mastery as a goal (i.e. “maxing out”), while others may choose to try and maximize their resources, defeat other players in combat, attain certain items, complete quests, play mini-games, or socialize. There is an explicit loss condition when a player loses all of their health points. This results in a ‘respawn’ where all new players enter the game (a relatively safe location), and (depending on the circumstances of their death) possible loss of held items. Other implied ‘losses’ include poor investment, or receiving disciplinary actions (such as mutes, or account bans).
Another important mechanic is the random number generator (RNG) and drop tables. Greater skill accumulation (in combat or resource-gathering skills) results in better position along the mentioned performance/”age” line. However, in order to maintain interest, and/or competitive balance an element of randomness is introduced to most activities via RNG. The RNG-driven drop tables also greatly impact the game economy. That is, it determines the probable amounts of resources and items that ‘enter’ the game through player actions.

One instance of gameplay based on relative isolation (in contrast to interaction) is worth mentioning. The developers noticed a trend emerging (The Runescape Wiki 2014): For whatever reason (added challenge, etc.) players would not engage in trade with others. Instead they would look to ‘perform’ the game under a self-imposed ruleset of self-sufficiency. This led to the official instantiation of the Iron(wo)man game mode, with official restrictions and an accompanying player title.

'''Update'''

The following are some ideas that expand the discussion to include some of the learning content and readings. Concepts about digital games and situated learning/cognition come out via the movement-exploration mechanic of RS. Controlling the avatar character allows for a learning that is "an outcome of the interaction between an individual and the environment or social setting" (Marone, 4). In addition to being a primary driver of narrative, movement and exploration via the player character avatar also produce a hybridization with the player user. This is further supported by other facets of the game such as the extensive customization of avatar aesthetics, which serve to visually connect player and avatar. A nice, combined example of visual, movement-based hybridization is also present in the game in the form of gestures known as emotes. Examples include waving, cheering, thinking or various skill-related emotes. Most emotes can be used for various non-textual communications with other players or NPCs.

Declarative knowledge application (though there are a few examples) recedes into the background of RS for the most part, while procedural knowledge tends to come to the fore.
The tacit movement skills, such as the barrier trapping mentioned above, illustrate a procedural knowledge application. Though it can be communicated, it still is relatively non-declarative. A case of "you know it when you see it". Successful application requires ''performance'', but few probably understand or even know of the underlying mechanics of a pathfinding algorithm. Anecdotally: 'luck' and observation may play a major role as conditions for this type of learning, unless the player has the benefit of social connection with existing players. Still, it is one of those digital skills/activities for which successful performance might be based on a feel, and reflexive response to certain visual cues, rather than adherence to strict instruction.

Relatively recently - developer and community posts began to refer to the RNG's role in the item-drop, or "loot" system (in response to player community curiosity). Shortly after - either out of comedy, ignorance, etc. - players have since coined the phrase "I used up all my RNG" to refer to an instance or series of perceived "bad luck" where RNG is thought to play a part. Regardless of its inaccuracy, this phrase may be grounded in some sort of declarative knowledge about probabilities, yet its use is entirely grounded in procedural knowledge (i.e. prior experience of dynamically determined probable outcomes).
Attempts to make procedural probability knowledge declarative are ongoing both in/outside of the game. Within: developers have released statistical tracking add-ons, that can help a player manage personal probabilistic data. Outwith: community sites (including wikis) attempt to perform the same knowledge gathering - but with it wholly determined (i.e. composed of multiple players' contributed data).

'''References'''

MisplacedMe (2019). “Runescape Player Count by Qtr Hr" Accessed at: http://www.misplaceditems.com/rs_tools/graph/

The Runescape Wiki (2014). "Ironman & Drop Table Reworks" Accessed at: https://runescape.fandom.com/wiki/Update:Ironman_%26_Drop_Table_Reworks

Marone (2016). "Playful Constructivism: Making Sense of Digital Games for Learning and Creativity Through Play, Design, and Participation" ''Journal of Virtual Worlds Research'' Vol. 9(3).

== Production 5 ==
Opt. 2: Play/Games definition a la H & C + Investigation via a Game

Personally, my favorite concept which represents play is that its nature cannot be determined and/or explained through scientific principles, and modes of investigation. Perhaps related, is play’s lack of moral function (Huizinga, 102). Play is also primary. I use primary in the sense of cognitive, but also evolutionary development in the same spirit as when Huizinga and Caillois refer to young children and animals. Primary often connotes an inferiority relative to the more-developed (not a sentiment I agree with mind you, i.e. “simple is hard”; “K.I.S.S.”; etc.). The notion of more-developed (anti-play) manifests as serious, daily-life, or boring types of activities. Usually these activities (even in complex examples like serious play) hinge on some aspect of society, or culture (e.g. economy, social status/class, etc.). I recall reading some research – I cannot remember the exact field, but perhaps it was psychology – that put forth an interesting finding. That is that biological adults needing to perform serious, and “adult” activities (and more importantly, to be ''seen performing'' these activities) indicates a fundamentally childish characteristic, or desire. Note: that this extension of play vs. seriousness includes this research not as an indictment of adult-serious, or play-childish executive function. It is more meant to question the performativity of play vs. seriousness, and the rigid linear model that is always applied to what is clearly a subjective spectrum composed of multiple factors such as enjoyment, and utility. Consider that some experience a genuinely dizzying vertigo from the play of effective accounting. Some approach it as a mimetic activity that straddles play/the serious. Yet some others treat it as an entirely boring, serious activity.
Thus Caillois’ work is helpful as a framework for what might be termed ''applications of play''. Furthermore, these applications are self- or co-determined expressions. Obviously this definition requires additional research, and distillation, and may be best openly presented as an ongoing exercise.

Therefore: 
Play is a primary application of subjective, or ''labile'' expression. It is devoid of moral function, and relatively slippery for analysis by systematic, rational modes of enquiry.

The game I will test this definition upon, is Halo: Reach (HR). The game features a variety of ludus and paidia according to various modes of play. There a number of game modes ranging from the story-driven campaign, to survival scenarios, to custom, and competitive multiplayer. I will explore some of the game mechanics, and coded preferences for subjective expression which can be controlled by a player to some extent. The best “in” to these mechanics is through HR’s multiplayer-mode “matchmaking” system. In addition to persistent local area network (LAN) multiplayer, HR is the third installment of the franchise which features online competitive/co-operative game play. In this installment, players are able to tailor their probable player network for the next game they join, based on four qualities under the banner of ‘Psych Profile’: 
Chattiness. Binary option for preference of chatty, or quiet teammates. 
Motivation. Binary option for preference of winning, or good-time seeking teammates. 
Teamwork. Binary option for preference of team player, or lone wolf teammates. 
Tone. Binary option for preference of rowdy, or polite chatting teammates. 

Multiplayer games offer various outlets for social expression, and rules and social controls (such as the psych profile) serve to introduce lability and customization of the player experience. While being a very play-centric concept, it also hits on the above definition’s caveat of lack of moral function. HR’s social controls remove certain groups of players. This brings to mind exclusionary practices, which are certainly prevalent in games of all types, and often made explicit in the case of childrens’ turbulent and lusory attitudes to preference setting. It is not uncommon to hear of games which restrict participation from the outset (or even during play) for apt, or arbitrary reasons. For example, potential players may be excluded from a game for reasons of social status, their hygienic perception, so-called “competitive balance”, or any other indicator. In HR social controls are based on indicators which are quantified and referred to as metrics. The social control condition of play thus shifts from being based in public personal/co-determined subjective opinion, or objective truths – to a digital environment that enforces social relations in a private, probabilistic manner.

It is perhaps ironic, that the campaign narrative, which is structured around a variety of individual team-member play styles does not allow for the same dynamic preference setting as the multiplayer match-making experience. One may engage in prescribed teamwork-, or ‘lone-wolf-’ style campaign missions, but can rarely break the mould, or effect AI/NPC social traits such as chattiness or motivation. In addition to network customization, HR offers play as a medium for subjective expression by (an albeit limited) customization of the player’s multiplayer avatar. These customizations effect many forms of expression such as gender, voice (patterned after some campaign characters) as well as the player’s armour form, colour, and markings. Furthermore, customizations can include capabilities which affect the competitive quality or style of play. A player may select one default special ability or swap them at will in certain games modes. This leads to a relatively unknown element in multiplayer matches in terms of specific ability distribution. This is perhaps the developers’ best effort at introducing a dynamic means of expression which varies based on different interactions with the game as a system.

An interesting claim provided in the explanation of multiplayer network settings is that (in all cases): “changing preferred [setting] will not affect search times.” This is perhaps an indication of the contemporary developer wisdom which suggests that players value a gaming experience with little down-time between games/rounds. If the disclaimer is accepted as true, it also may indicate that the valuation of speed exceeds that of these various social qualities.

Huizinga (1955). “Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Homo Ludens) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via Beacon Press.''

Caillois (1961). “The Definition of Play and The Classification of Games”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Man, Play and Games) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via University of Illinois Press''

== Production 7 ==
<gallery>
File:Reach-Farmhouse.jpg|Fig. 1- Reach Farmhouse
File:Reach-Turbines.jpg|Fig. 2- Rural Wind Turbines
File:Caracalla park(Tacitus Halopedia).jpg|Fig. 3- Caracalla Park - a good setting to harvest wind on New Alexandria's outskirts
</gallery>

This production looks to build on concepts of aesthetics, the subaltern and future imaginaries in the cultural studies of videogames. These include: future imaginaries surrounding energy security, and the aesthetics of future, urban, military, or rural renewable energy technology. This work will also consider the subsequent effects of: perceived canonical inconsistency and; affect (e.g. valorization, frustration, etc.) resulting from narrative. The Halo franchise will be used to situate the former, and the game Halo: Reach, for the Xbox360 will be used as a lens to explore the remaining concepts through its narrative-laden campaign mode. A novel contribution is made at the end of the discussion of futurism aesthetics. This is that inconsistent experimentation with a future imaginary aesthetic, produces a specific, visual, tokenism.

Halo: Reach’s opening level renders several small wind-energy harvesters across the landscape of what appears to be a dedicated farming planet (named Reach). This is familiar territory, as It is through this representation of a future setting that persuasion and direct engagement challenges are bypassed (Abraham 2018). Abraham’s work is based on the game ARMA 3, as an island setting which represented a number of large, centralized renewable energy facilities and systems (solar arrays, wind farms, etc.). One can argue that in reality, from a functional standpoint: rural communities, and – more specifically – household units are the setting for the most effective present implementations of renewable energy generation. Certainly, such units have been a major factor in the genesis, and growth in popularity of such technologies for pragmatic factors such as distance/inefficiency in traditional access of centralized systems, spatial seclusion, etc. Distributed, smaller-scale implementation such as on Reach is just as likely (if not more so) a scenario for near-future energy generation capacities, relative to large-scale facilities.

It is unclear whether some of Reach’s rural inhabitants (mostly unencountered due to evacuation) are permanent settlers, or if they are transient labourers in agriculture, or resource extraction. Though the farms, and shipping hubs portray technological sophistication/futurism, secure in their access to energy, they also communicate humble pragmatism. Structures make use of the natural landscape, rarely appearing out of place, and only seemingly connected by informal infrastructure such as dirt roads [see gallery figure 1]. This is reinforced by contrast with the introduction of an investigating Spartan team, their military technology at the fore. This technology includes vehicles and weapons which propel due to the work of diegetic, combustion-based mechanisms. Later in the game, Reach is revealed to have areas with more advanced industries and infrastructure, such as ship-building facilities, titanium mines, and large cities (like New Alexandria). Renewable energy seems fine for activities like farming or powering small rural dwellings, but strictly political-economic applications (such as military, or city operations) do not make overt use of this kind of energy. A colonial otherness thus contributes to the perception of a renewable energy tokenism. Simply defined: tokenism is a perfunctory or symbolic effort. Often it refers to instances of racialism and efforts to portray equality. It seems that tokenism is the antithesis, or saboteur of Ian Bogost’s & Mary Flanagan’s ideas of subversive video games. Generally, tokenism equates to some new venture, but ultimately plans not to achieve disruption or transformative effects of any significance, resulting in preservation of the status quo. 
Renewable energy tokenism pervades due to the omission of meaningful representations of military, or city-scale applications. There is a definite otherness to the rural treatment of renewable energy, which is somehow unable (or unwilling) to translate to urban settings – the traditional site of colonial power. Donald Schön states that “experiments should not “confirm” and “answer” to a challenge but affirm that challenge”. He also goes on to relate that computer science (game design included) is turning to a model of continuous dialogue between values and practice (Schön 1983). The modeling of futuristic, vertically-oriented wind turbines assets [see gallery figure 2] is valuable as an experiment of exposure to an imagined energy future. Designers do not need to necessarily valorize renewable energy, or a specific technology. However, in order to be a successful experiment, Halo: Reach’s designers require dialogue with a greater treatment of the scientific principles of experimental procedure. The enactment of tenets such as rigorous application, and adequate sampling, throughout the design of Halo: Reach would give the renewable energy imaginary its proper due.

Energy security is a particularly troubling topic when Reach is viewed as a prequel in the Halo franchise, as this was the first installment to represent renewable energy generation mechanisms in any detail. The canon of renewables in the franchise (used in the all-encompassing sense of zeitgeist, or orthodoxy) is thus fragmented. Audiences will view the omission of renewables (in chronologically earlier releases) as a loss of momentum for the fictional renewable energy industry/market. Economic inflections are common in video games. Baerg says that the procedural rhetoric of video games supports an economically inflected rationality behind the making of choices (Baerg 2009), and the example of Reach perhaps represents an economic-narrative element. Mukherjee made use of the concept of canon toward his definition of sub-altern amid postcolonial undertones in video games. Ultimately, subaltern is a concept concerned with writing history from below, but it often lacks a voice to articulate itself. This facility of articulation involves exercise of any number of powers such as political, social, or economic (Mukherjee 2018). Thus as a perceived element that was “phased out” in chronological Halo canon, renewable energy generation is made subaltern. From Reach to the next installment, questions arise about renewables’ economic, political, and/or social viability/tenability. The sort of precedence offered by a prequel takes on features of an articulation strategy known as the single story (SS). This is a narrative device that has supported colonial and postcolonial efforts, by retaining power and limiting articulation of native cultural voice (Adichie 2009). The Reach prequel thus imposes a narrative that shapes (and possibly changes) thoughts and beliefs about the overall canon. 
Even throughout a playthrough of Reach one questions renewables’ compatibility with urban-futurist aesthetics, or whether it is politically or economically scalable to city-, or military-scale use. The aesthetics of New Alexandria are affective. One can imagine living somewhere in these cities, making use of its many interconnected public squares, and plazas. They communicate clean minimalism, and the urban planning nears complete integration, but there is also tremendous opacity. One cannot glean (from the exterior) the program, or purpose of any individual building or cluster – including its energy need, or potential sources [see gallery figure 3]. The possible answer to the questions one develops about renewables (though never fully settled) is ever-present in the negative, by omission relative to the game’s opening experience with contrasting rural applications.
Far more extreme would be the gamer that extrapolates and attributes the narrative of the fall of Reach to some lack of preparedness, capability, or force associated with the presence or use of renewables. The player’s perspective as a Spartan that is equipped with gas-powered technology performs a valorization operation, and presents renewables as a weak, or ineffectual energy source by contrast. Keep in mind that Reach represented the first such engagement with the Covenant (one of the main enemy forces) in earth-controlled space and runs on an emotional narrative. The campaign always ends as an integrated cutscene with the player controlling the last remaining Spartan as the planet is ‘glassed’ by the victorious Covenant. Irrational responses and extreme associations therefore are to be expected. These sorts of classification of narrative represent an in for discussion of an interesting concept that is situated between climate science and urban planning. This concept is defensible drama (DD). In DD, emotional response is valued as an input toward personal behavioural, and collective change. Climate change simulations, and other rendered representations are situated against a backdrop of local contexts and are used to elicit the emotional response (Sheppard et al. 2008). DD represents an attempt to navigate a specific group-singular narrative but can also be perceived as single story articulation. Again, science and experimental rigor act as ‘fail-safes’ to concerns about this type of representation’s objectivity, accuracy, and ethical concerns.

'''References'''

Abraham (2018). “Video Game Visions of Climate Futures: ARMA 3 and Implications for Games and Persuasion” Games and Culture Vol. 13(1), pp. 71-91.

Adichie (2009). “The Danger of a Single Story” TedGlobal. Accessed at: https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story

Baerg (2009). “Governmentality, Neoliberalism, and the Digital Game” Symploke Vol. 17, pp. 115–127.

Mukherjee (2018). “Playing Subaltern” Games and Culture Vol. 13(5), pp. 504-520.

Schön (1983). “Reflective Practice”. Basic Books New York

Sheppard (2008). “Can Visualisation Save the World? - Lessons for Landscape Architects from Visualizing Local Climate Change”. Accessed at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255570495_Can_Visualisation_Save_the_World_-_Lessons_for_Landscape_Architects_from_Visualizing_Local_Climate_Change

== Meta-Reading Notes ==
Coming soon (working on digitization)...

== Other Content ==
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTOXDnX-HA Edmund's Game Proposal 7/2/2019]

(Forgot to mention '''Possible tools!''')

RPGmaker: for easy/built-in item, or resource manager

Unity: 3D/more visual detail, agent pathfinding (for if a Pikmin-style game)

'''Reference Links:'''

[https://www.catan.com/game/catan-scenarios-oil-springs Catan OilSprings Expansion]

[https://www.pcgamesn.com/hellblade-senuas-sacrifice/hellblade-documentary Hellblade Article]

== My UserPage ==
[https://www.refugeesrespond.org/dadaabwikimedia/index.php?title=User:Edmund]

File:Reach-Turbines.jpg

2019-04-04T20:49:03Z

Edmund:

File:Reach-Farmhouse.jpg

2019-04-04T20:48:41Z

Edmund:

File:Caracalla park(Tacitus Halopedia).jpg

2019-04-04T20:47:59Z

Edmund: orig: screenshot by Tacitus (Halopedia)

orig: screenshot by Tacitus (Halopedia)

Edmund's Page

2019-02-28T17:14:52Z

Edmund: /* Production 5 */

== Production 2 ==

Flow was mentioned a few times throughout Bogost’s book. Having already read some work on the topic of flow, I felt it would be useful to dedicate a separate chapter to its coverage. Bogost referenced an important work on flow by Csikszentmihalyi, and used the term in sections dealing with relaxation, and to a lesser degree in the 'Music' and 'Transit' sections. The latter's mention was albeit, more likely based on a logistical definition such as when referring to traffic rates and volumes of people or goods.

B’s ‘Music’ section, however, is a useful “in” to understanding flow due to its emphasis on timing, and various embodiments. This is supported in athletic, and musical performance literature which espouses the benefits of flow-like states, and recommends rhythmic breathing, and other auditory devices. Many videogamers may find such training and strategies useful as well.

Cz's concept of flow can certainly account for relaxation, and performance. These exist along axes of challenge, and skill (see the diagram).
[[File:File_Challenge_vs_skill_svg_Wikipedia.png|200px|thumb|left|alt text]]
His and other work, also provide first hand accounts which begin to describe flow as a state of unison between body and mind. Other definitions include great concentration, or absorption in an activity at hand.

B's book abounds on many of video games’ experiential aspects. Maybe this is largely subjective (and contrary to what gamification consultants may say), or perhaps there are common aspects of videogames - such as art, music, or kitsch which can appeal (relax, worry, bore, arouse, etc.) broadly.

The general skill requirement of videogames often centres on manipulation of inputs towards an algorithmic end (winning a point, moving an avatar etc.). These inputs consist of embodied activities such as precise, ordered manipulation of buttons, joysticks, or other devices. The activities themselves, are notably similar to the inputs required in the performance of many musical instruments. Furthermore, whatever might be occurring in-game impresses its own 'reading' challenges as well, and imposes strategic challenges, and an embodied demand of quick input reactions. Exercise games are an especially interesting subset of games, which no doubt increase the physical demand of challenge, skill, and perhaps enjoyment as well.

From discussion of players and roles we know that anyone can fill the protagonists' shoes. Gaming communities are starting to become interested in watching and engaging with these players. Consider the growth in popularity of game streaming and tournament broadcasts. Much like athletic, or musical prowess, flow is an ever-present personal state, or quality. Consequently, flow provides equal opportunity for entertainment and (along with some notable social skills and other factors) is capable of drawing a crowd. The old adage says something along the lines of “it’s not important whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game”. Some of the week 3 reading (Nolan & McBride, etc.) helped shed some light on superficial game-based learning, and gamification. Interest in competition may always remain (wins and losses), but what is starting to compete with results for interest, is the players behind the competition, and their own unique “brand” of play. Put simply, audiences are becoming curious, and captivated by ''how'' certain players play.

== Production 3 ==
This week’s production is roughly split into two sections. These are connections between the trials of the hack-a-game game, and the workshop/game design literature; and an extension of the critique of gamification in digital game-based learning (DGBL).

Fullerton’s book outlines some practical considerations for game design. Communication is listed early on, as “the most important skill” (Fullerton 2008, 5) that designers can develop. This rang true in practice, as nearly all of the activities of the game-hacking exercise with the Space Race game focused on communication. In addition to being most prevalent, it was also the most challenging, and rewarding activity. It was largely unstructured, and undocumented. This may have been appropriate for a small group of first-timers, but one does wonder to what degree such communication is ‘organic’ in professional practice. Fullerton also includes a section dedicated to team communication, and lists formal meetings, or less formal (but still organized) ‘scrums’ as good communication structures. Furthermore Fullerton identifies a set of common specifications, or documents being a big part of the design team’s work, and listed it as key to ‘standardizing’ communication (Fullerton 2008, 15). One can certainly imagine the added challenges if in our relatively ‘fluid’ hack of Space Race, the three designers also approached from different ‘angles’ (e.g. education/background, competencies, vocabulary, etc.).

The Design Process of the hack-a-game game trial was similarly fluid, and seems describable by some combination of playercentric, and iterative. In a way, the trial group did not consider player experience early enough in the process – something Fullerton would prefer (Fullerton 2008, 10-11) – but it seemed to emerge through iteration. A good example is when the group discovered they had greatly extended the length of the game, and reactively swapped scoring, for a ‘last-goal-wins’ mechanic. It is possible that the team was rather lucky with the ‘path’ of hacks chosen. Perhaps an initial idea was not so foundational, and thus did not end up pigeon-holing any subsequent ideas (i.e. into a similar theme, mechanic, etc.). Imagining the Process as an infinity of possible hack-decisions at the outset: surely some of these decisions take on a ‘tree-limb’, or fractal form. For example, decision 1, may only allow for a series of 1a,b,c decisions, and precludes additional decisions of 2, 3, … n. Another point to consider as part of the Process, is that this trial of the hack-a-game game involved an analog game, and therefore required little computational literacy. Certain functions, and conditionals were instantiated, and modified in analog – and it is likely that a digital Design Process would be affected by the group’s competency of enacting these (most certainly in speed, or number of possible hack tests) in a digital format.

In transitioning to a discussion of DGBL, there are opinions, research, and policy which exist on a spectrum between full support, or opposition. One of these is the concept of digital natives, and their perceived (yet not wholly proven) skill with digital technologies. Other supportive arguments seem clear-cut but are murky in their own right. Researchers such as diSessa and Wing see that there “is a growing acknowledgement among educational researchers, computer scientists and teachers that “computational thinking” and algorithmic logic ought to be considered a kind of “core literacy”” (Jenson & Droumeva, 2017). Broadly conceived, an algorithm is a process of problem solving. Is there any risk/complication associated with learning computer science principles through gameplay/design ''only'', especially at a young age? Further to this, one might question if lusory attitudes (an important facet of game play, and development) may be coopted for the facilitation of certain curricula. Bernard Suits defines a lusory attitude as “the player’s adoption of the rule-set of a game” (Nolan & McBride 2014, 599). One specific concern is the potential tension (or worse – passivity) which may result between critical thinking (e.g. challenging norms, questioning society, etc.) and the installation of a series of DGBL rule-sets. This is especially concerning given education’s historical mandate of preparing students for future careers, and curricula around ‘making’ with technology that are purportedly built on an “understanding of the ''good things''” (emphasis added) (Thumlert et al. 2018, 705). At times, this has amounted to little more than superficial ‘gamification’, essentially only serving to extend a curricular desire for another form of accounting. Gamification can and has been installed into professional work settings with varying degrees of success, but it is not yet clear what implications may exist for these so-called digital natives who are soon to enter the workforce.

'''References'''

Fullerton (2008). “Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games”. ''Elsevier''

Jenson & Droumeva (2017). “Revisiting the Media Generation: Youth Media Use and Computational Literacy instruction”.
''E-Learning and Digital Media.'' Vol. 14(4), pp. 212-225.

Nolan & McBride (2014). “Beyond Gamification: Reconceptualizing Game Based Learning in Early Childhood Environments.”
''Information, Communication & Society.'' Vol. 17(5), pp. 594-608.

Thumlert et al. (2018). “Learning Through Game Design: A Production Pedagogy”. ''Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Game-Based Learning ECGBL''

== Production 4 ==
Option 2: De-Composing Runescape

Some brief background: Runescape is a popular MMORPG. Roughly 2000 players can be accommodated on a single game world (server), with an instantaneous average of 100,000 active players (MisplacedMe 2019). A players’ first actions consist of modifying the appearance of their avatar ‘character’ and completing a tutorial of the major facets of the game.

The premise of the game is multifaceted (combat, quest completion/puzzle-solving, construction, mini-games etc.) with an underlying economic resource production/management theme. It is set in the realm of Gielinor – best described as a stylized medieval earth that features fantasy elements (think: Martin’s continental setting for the Game of Thrones series, or Tolkien’s setting of Middle Earth).
Implicit in the combat, and resource gathering mechanics is a sense of linear progression from reality-inspired, to fantasy-inspired. This perhaps parallels a model of scientific innovation, ''or'' historical “ages” of production that connote some ‘better’ performance. For example, the earliest accessible metals (bronze or iron) correspond to a low level of combat weapon damage, or armour protection, and resource gathering speed/efficiency. Higher level, better performing metals consist of adamant (‘borrowed’ from mythology, and Marvel comics lore), rune, and dragon (‘proprietary’), to name a few. The association of linear progress with performance/efficiency may reinforce a few pedagogies about innovation (e.g. it always or is only to be found in the future).

The rule sets and systems are conceptually quite simple. They are made complex or dynamic by the interactions (or lack thereof*) with other players or non-player characters.

The primary mechanic is movement. It is constrained to an orthogonal grid within the player’s field of view, and performed through clicking a chosen destination. A pathfinding routine is then called, and the player’s movement is animated. This is one of the earliest remaining ‘foundational’ elements of Runescape and has influenced gameplay in numerous ways. Foremost, it rewards exploration into the unknown – the initial location of the game caters to learning, and low-level play. Furthermore, over time and with practice, players discover how to manipulate pathfinding mechanics, and (more importantly) that of NPCs. A key combat skill (but one that may never be formalized through the tutorial) is the ability to attract and trap an aggressive NPC or player behind obstacles or barriers. This brings to mind Fullerton’s suggestions about playtesting. It is entirely possible that Runescape’s original designer – Andrew Gower envisioned rigid ‘to the death’ combat scenarios (valuing preparation, and strategy). However, player tendencies (e.g. curiosity and exploration) led to a more dynamic conception of strategy, which added flight, and avoidance to fight events. Flexibility and a willingness to adapt have allowed this rather unique tactic to flourish as a somewhat tacit aspect of Runescape culture.

There are no explicit win conditions, save for the narrative-laden Quests that a player may opt to begin. Goals, and win-conditions are largely self-determined. Some view skill mastery as a goal (i.e. “maxing out”), while others may choose to try and maximize their resources, defeat other players in combat, attain certain items, complete quests, play mini-games, or socialize. There is an explicit loss condition when a player loses all of their health points. This results in a ‘respawn’ where all new players enter the game (a relatively safe location), and (depending on the circumstances of their death) possible loss of held items. Other implied ‘losses’ include poor investment, or receiving disciplinary actions (such as mutes, or account bans).
Another important mechanic is the random number generator (RNG) and drop tables. Greater skill accumulation (in combat or resource-gathering skills) results in better position along the mentioned performance/”age” line. However, in order to maintain interest, and/or competitive balance an element of randomness is introduced to most activities via RNG. The RNG-driven drop tables also greatly impact the game economy. That is, it determines the probable amounts of resources and items that ‘enter’ the game through player actions.

One instance of gameplay based on relative isolation (in contrast to interaction) is worth mentioning. The developers noticed a trend emerging (The Runescape Wiki 2014): For whatever reason (added challenge, etc.) players would not engage in trade with others. Instead they would look to ‘perform’ the game under a self-imposed ruleset of self-sufficiency. This led to the official instantiation of the Iron(wo)man game mode, with official restrictions and an accompanying player title.

'''Update'''

The following are some ideas that expand the discussion to include some of the learning content and readings. Concepts about digital games and situated learning/cognition come out via the movement-exploration mechanic of RS. Controlling the avatar character allows for a learning that is "an outcome of the interaction between an individual and the environment or social setting" (Marone, 4). In addition to being a primary driver of narrative, movement and exploration via the player character avatar also produce a hybridization with the player user. This is further supported by other facets of the game such as the extensive customization of avatar aesthetics, which serve to visually connect player and avatar. A nice, combined example of visual, movement-based hybridization is also present in the game in the form of gestures known as emotes. Examples include waving, cheering, thinking or various skill-related emotes. Most emotes can be used for various non-textual communications with other players or NPCs.

Declarative knowledge application (though there are a few examples) recedes into the background of RS for the most part, while procedural knowledge tends to come to the fore.
The tacit movement skills, such as the barrier trapping mentioned above, illustrate a procedural knowledge application. Though it can be communicated, it still is relatively non-declarative. A case of "you know it when you see it". Successful application requires ''performance'', but few probably understand or even know of the underlying mechanics of a pathfinding algorithm. Anecdotally: 'luck' and observation may play a major role as conditions for this type of learning, unless the player has the benefit of social connection with existing players. Still, it is one of those digital skills/activities for which successful performance might be based on a feel, and reflexive response to certain visual cues, rather than adherence to strict instruction.

Relatively recently - developer and community posts began to refer to the RNG's role in the item-drop, or "loot" system (in response to player community curiosity). Shortly after - either out of comedy, ignorance, etc. - players have since coined the phrase "I used up all my RNG" to refer to an instance or series of perceived "bad luck" where RNG is thought to play a part. Regardless of its inaccuracy, this phrase may be grounded in some sort of declarative knowledge about probabilities, yet its use is entirely grounded in procedural knowledge (i.e. prior experience of dynamically determined probable outcomes).
Attempts to make procedural probability knowledge declarative are ongoing both in/outside of the game. Within: developers have released statistical tracking add-ons, that can help a player manage personal probabilistic data. Outwith: community sites (including wikis) attempt to perform the same knowledge gathering - but with it wholly determined (i.e. composed of multiple players' contributed data).

'''References'''

MisplacedMe (2019). “Runescape Player Count by Qtr Hr" Accessed at: http://www.misplaceditems.com/rs_tools/graph/

The Runescape Wiki (2014). "Ironman & Drop Table Reworks" Accessed at: https://runescape.fandom.com/wiki/Update:Ironman_%26_Drop_Table_Reworks

Marone (2016). "Playful Constructivism: Making Sense of Digital Games for Learning and Creativity Through Play, Design, and Participation" ''Journal of Virtual Worlds Research'' Vol. 9(3).

== Production 5 ==
Opt. 2: Play/Games definition a la H & C + Investigation via a Game

Personally, my favorite concept which represents play is that its nature cannot be determined and/or explained through scientific principles, and modes of investigation. Perhaps related, is play’s lack of moral function (Huizinga, 102). Play is also primary. I use primary in the sense of cognitive, but also evolutionary development in the same spirit as when Huizinga and Caillois refer to young children and animals. Primary often connotes an inferiority relative to the more-developed (not a sentiment I agree with mind you, i.e. “simple is hard”; “K.I.S.S.”; etc.). The notion of more-developed (anti-play) manifests as serious, daily-life, or boring types of activities. Usually these activities (even in complex examples like serious play) hinge on some aspect of society, or culture (e.g. economy, social status/class, etc.). I recall reading some research – I cannot remember the exact field, but perhaps it was psychology – that put forth an interesting finding. That is that biological adults needing to perform serious, and “adult” activities (and more importantly, to be ''seen performing'' these activities) indicates a fundamentally childish characteristic, or desire. Note: that this extension of play vs. seriousness includes this research not as an indictment of adult-serious, or play-childish executive function. It is more meant to question the performativity of play vs. seriousness, and the rigid linear model that is always applied to what is clearly a subjective spectrum composed of multiple factors such as enjoyment, and utility. Consider that some experience a genuinely dizzying vertigo from the play of effective accounting. Some approach it as a mimetic activity that straddles play/the serious. Yet some others treat it as an entirely boring, serious activity.
Thus Caillois’ work is helpful as a framework for what might be termed ''applications of play''. Furthermore, these applications are self- or co-determined expressions. Obviously this definition requires additional research, and distillation, and may be best openly presented as an ongoing exercise.

Therefore: 
Play is a primary application of subjective, or ''labile'' expression. It is devoid of moral function, and relatively slippery for analysis by systematic, rational modes of enquiry.

The game I will test this definition upon, is Halo: Reach (HR). The game features a variety of ludus and paidia according to various modes of play. There a number of game modes ranging from the story-driven campaign, to survival scenarios, to custom, and competitive multiplayer. I will explore some of the game mechanics, and coded preferences for subjective expression which can be controlled by a player to some extent. The best “in” to these mechanics is through HR’s multiplayer-mode “matchmaking” system. In addition to persistent local area network (LAN) multiplayer, HR is the third installment of the franchise which features online competitive/co-operative game play. In this installment, players are able to tailor their probable player network for the next game they join, based on four qualities under the banner of ‘Psych Profile’: 
Chattiness. Binary option for preference of chatty, or quiet teammates. 
Motivation. Binary option for preference of winning, or good-time seeking teammates. 
Teamwork. Binary option for preference of team player, or lone wolf teammates. 
Tone. Binary option for preference of rowdy, or polite chatting teammates. 

Multiplayer games offer various outlets for social expression, and rules and social controls (such as the psych profile) serve to introduce lability and customization of the player experience. While being a very play-centric concept, it also hits on the above definition’s caveat of lack of moral function. HR’s social controls remove certain groups of players. This brings to mind exclusionary practices, which are certainly prevalent in games of all types, and often made explicit in the case of childrens’ turbulent and lusory attitudes to preference setting. It is not uncommon to hear of games which restrict participation from the outset (or even during play) for apt, or arbitrary reasons. For example, potential players may be excluded from a game for reasons of social status, their hygienic perception, so-called “competitive balance”, or any other indicator. In HR social controls are based on indicators which are quantified and referred to as metrics. The social control condition of play thus shifts from being based in public personal/co-determined subjective opinion, or objective truths – to a digital environment that enforces social relations in a private, probabilistic manner.

It is perhaps ironic, that the campaign narrative, which is structured around a variety of individual team-member play styles does not allow for the same dynamic preference setting as the multiplayer match-making experience. One may engage in prescribed teamwork-, or ‘lone-wolf-’ style campaign missions, but can rarely break the mould, or effect AI/NPC social traits such as chattiness or motivation. In addition to network customization, HR offers play as a medium for subjective expression by (an albeit limited) customization of the player’s multiplayer avatar. These customizations effect many forms of expression such as gender, voice (patterned after some campaign characters) as well as the player’s armour form, colour, and markings. Furthermore, customizations can include capabilities which affect the competitive quality or style of play. A player may select one default special ability or swap them at will in certain games modes. This leads to a relatively unknown element in multiplayer matches in terms of specific ability distribution. This is perhaps the developers’ best effort at introducing a dynamic means of expression which varies based on different interactions with the game as a system.

An interesting claim provided in the explanation of multiplayer network settings is that (in all cases): “changing preferred [setting] will not affect search times.” This is perhaps an indication of the contemporary developer wisdom which suggests that players value a gaming experience with little down-time between games/rounds. If the disclaimer is accepted as true, it also may indicate that the valuation of speed exceeds that of these various social qualities.

Huizinga (1955). “Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Homo Ludens) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via Beacon Press.''

Caillois (1961). “The Definition of Play and The Classification of Games”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Man, Play and Games) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via University of Illinois Press''

== Meta-Reading Notes ==
Coming soon (working on digitization)...

== Other Content ==
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTOXDnX-HA Edmund's Game Proposal 7/2/2019]

(Forgot to mention '''Possible tools!''')

RPGmaker: for easy/built-in item, or resource manager

Unity: 3D/more visual detail, agent pathfinding (for if a Pikmin-style game)

'''Reference Links:'''

[https://www.catan.com/game/catan-scenarios-oil-springs Catan OilSprings Expansion]

[https://www.pcgamesn.com/hellblade-senuas-sacrifice/hellblade-documentary Hellblade Article]

== My UserPage ==
[https://www.refugeesrespond.org/dadaabwikimedia/index.php?title=User:Edmund]

Edmund's Page

2019-02-28T17:06:29Z

Edmund: /* Production 5 */

== Production 2 ==

Flow was mentioned a few times throughout Bogost’s book. Having already read some work on the topic of flow, I felt it would be useful to dedicate a separate chapter to its coverage. Bogost referenced an important work on flow by Csikszentmihalyi, and used the term in sections dealing with relaxation, and to a lesser degree in the 'Music' and 'Transit' sections. The latter's mention was albeit, more likely based on a logistical definition such as when referring to traffic rates and volumes of people or goods.

B’s ‘Music’ section, however, is a useful “in” to understanding flow due to its emphasis on timing, and various embodiments. This is supported in athletic, and musical performance literature which espouses the benefits of flow-like states, and recommends rhythmic breathing, and other auditory devices. Many videogamers may find such training and strategies useful as well.

Cz's concept of flow can certainly account for relaxation, and performance. These exist along axes of challenge, and skill (see the diagram).
[[File:File_Challenge_vs_skill_svg_Wikipedia.png|200px|thumb|left|alt text]]
His and other work, also provide first hand accounts which begin to describe flow as a state of unison between body and mind. Other definitions include great concentration, or absorption in an activity at hand.

B's book abounds on many of video games’ experiential aspects. Maybe this is largely subjective (and contrary to what gamification consultants may say), or perhaps there are common aspects of videogames - such as art, music, or kitsch which can appeal (relax, worry, bore, arouse, etc.) broadly.

The general skill requirement of videogames often centres on manipulation of inputs towards an algorithmic end (winning a point, moving an avatar etc.). These inputs consist of embodied activities such as precise, ordered manipulation of buttons, joysticks, or other devices. The activities themselves, are notably similar to the inputs required in the performance of many musical instruments. Furthermore, whatever might be occurring in-game impresses its own 'reading' challenges as well, and imposes strategic challenges, and an embodied demand of quick input reactions. Exercise games are an especially interesting subset of games, which no doubt increase the physical demand of challenge, skill, and perhaps enjoyment as well.

From discussion of players and roles we know that anyone can fill the protagonists' shoes. Gaming communities are starting to become interested in watching and engaging with these players. Consider the growth in popularity of game streaming and tournament broadcasts. Much like athletic, or musical prowess, flow is an ever-present personal state, or quality. Consequently, flow provides equal opportunity for entertainment and (along with some notable social skills and other factors) is capable of drawing a crowd. The old adage says something along the lines of “it’s not important whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game”. Some of the week 3 reading (Nolan & McBride, etc.) helped shed some light on superficial game-based learning, and gamification. Interest in competition may always remain (wins and losses), but what is starting to compete with results for interest, is the players behind the competition, and their own unique “brand” of play. Put simply, audiences are becoming curious, and captivated by ''how'' certain players play.

== Production 3 ==
This week’s production is roughly split into two sections. These are connections between the trials of the hack-a-game game, and the workshop/game design literature; and an extension of the critique of gamification in digital game-based learning (DGBL).

Fullerton’s book outlines some practical considerations for game design. Communication is listed early on, as “the most important skill” (Fullerton 2008, 5) that designers can develop. This rang true in practice, as nearly all of the activities of the game-hacking exercise with the Space Race game focused on communication. In addition to being most prevalent, it was also the most challenging, and rewarding activity. It was largely unstructured, and undocumented. This may have been appropriate for a small group of first-timers, but one does wonder to what degree such communication is ‘organic’ in professional practice. Fullerton also includes a section dedicated to team communication, and lists formal meetings, or less formal (but still organized) ‘scrums’ as good communication structures. Furthermore Fullerton identifies a set of common specifications, or documents being a big part of the design team’s work, and listed it as key to ‘standardizing’ communication (Fullerton 2008, 15). One can certainly imagine the added challenges if in our relatively ‘fluid’ hack of Space Race, the three designers also approached from different ‘angles’ (e.g. education/background, competencies, vocabulary, etc.).

The Design Process of the hack-a-game game trial was similarly fluid, and seems describable by some combination of playercentric, and iterative. In a way, the trial group did not consider player experience early enough in the process – something Fullerton would prefer (Fullerton 2008, 10-11) – but it seemed to emerge through iteration. A good example is when the group discovered they had greatly extended the length of the game, and reactively swapped scoring, for a ‘last-goal-wins’ mechanic. It is possible that the team was rather lucky with the ‘path’ of hacks chosen. Perhaps an initial idea was not so foundational, and thus did not end up pigeon-holing any subsequent ideas (i.e. into a similar theme, mechanic, etc.). Imagining the Process as an infinity of possible hack-decisions at the outset: surely some of these decisions take on a ‘tree-limb’, or fractal form. For example, decision 1, may only allow for a series of 1a,b,c decisions, and precludes additional decisions of 2, 3, … n. Another point to consider as part of the Process, is that this trial of the hack-a-game game involved an analog game, and therefore required little computational literacy. Certain functions, and conditionals were instantiated, and modified in analog – and it is likely that a digital Design Process would be affected by the group’s competency of enacting these (most certainly in speed, or number of possible hack tests) in a digital format.

In transitioning to a discussion of DGBL, there are opinions, research, and policy which exist on a spectrum between full support, or opposition. One of these is the concept of digital natives, and their perceived (yet not wholly proven) skill with digital technologies. Other supportive arguments seem clear-cut but are murky in their own right. Researchers such as diSessa and Wing see that there “is a growing acknowledgement among educational researchers, computer scientists and teachers that “computational thinking” and algorithmic logic ought to be considered a kind of “core literacy”” (Jenson & Droumeva, 2017). Broadly conceived, an algorithm is a process of problem solving. Is there any risk/complication associated with learning computer science principles through gameplay/design ''only'', especially at a young age? Further to this, one might question if lusory attitudes (an important facet of game play, and development) may be coopted for the facilitation of certain curricula. Bernard Suits defines a lusory attitude as “the player’s adoption of the rule-set of a game” (Nolan & McBride 2014, 599). One specific concern is the potential tension (or worse – passivity) which may result between critical thinking (e.g. challenging norms, questioning society, etc.) and the installation of a series of DGBL rule-sets. This is especially concerning given education’s historical mandate of preparing students for future careers, and curricula around ‘making’ with technology that are purportedly built on an “understanding of the ''good things''” (emphasis added) (Thumlert et al. 2018, 705). At times, this has amounted to little more than superficial ‘gamification’, essentially only serving to extend a curricular desire for another form of accounting. Gamification can and has been installed into professional work settings with varying degrees of success, but it is not yet clear what implications may exist for these so-called digital natives who are soon to enter the workforce.

'''References'''

Fullerton (2008). “Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games”. ''Elsevier''

Jenson & Droumeva (2017). “Revisiting the Media Generation: Youth Media Use and Computational Literacy instruction”.
''E-Learning and Digital Media.'' Vol. 14(4), pp. 212-225.

Nolan & McBride (2014). “Beyond Gamification: Reconceptualizing Game Based Learning in Early Childhood Environments.”
''Information, Communication & Society.'' Vol. 17(5), pp. 594-608.

Thumlert et al. (2018). “Learning Through Game Design: A Production Pedagogy”. ''Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Game-Based Learning ECGBL''

== Production 4 ==
Option 2: De-Composing Runescape

Some brief background: Runescape is a popular MMORPG. Roughly 2000 players can be accommodated on a single game world (server), with an instantaneous average of 100,000 active players (MisplacedMe 2019). A players’ first actions consist of modifying the appearance of their avatar ‘character’ and completing a tutorial of the major facets of the game.

The premise of the game is multifaceted (combat, quest completion/puzzle-solving, construction, mini-games etc.) with an underlying economic resource production/management theme. It is set in the realm of Gielinor – best described as a stylized medieval earth that features fantasy elements (think: Martin’s continental setting for the Game of Thrones series, or Tolkien’s setting of Middle Earth).
Implicit in the combat, and resource gathering mechanics is a sense of linear progression from reality-inspired, to fantasy-inspired. This perhaps parallels a model of scientific innovation, ''or'' historical “ages” of production that connote some ‘better’ performance. For example, the earliest accessible metals (bronze or iron) correspond to a low level of combat weapon damage, or armour protection, and resource gathering speed/efficiency. Higher level, better performing metals consist of adamant (‘borrowed’ from mythology, and Marvel comics lore), rune, and dragon (‘proprietary’), to name a few. The association of linear progress with performance/efficiency may reinforce a few pedagogies about innovation (e.g. it always or is only to be found in the future).

The rule sets and systems are conceptually quite simple. They are made complex or dynamic by the interactions (or lack thereof*) with other players or non-player characters.

The primary mechanic is movement. It is constrained to an orthogonal grid within the player’s field of view, and performed through clicking a chosen destination. A pathfinding routine is then called, and the player’s movement is animated. This is one of the earliest remaining ‘foundational’ elements of Runescape and has influenced gameplay in numerous ways. Foremost, it rewards exploration into the unknown – the initial location of the game caters to learning, and low-level play. Furthermore, over time and with practice, players discover how to manipulate pathfinding mechanics, and (more importantly) that of NPCs. A key combat skill (but one that may never be formalized through the tutorial) is the ability to attract and trap an aggressive NPC or player behind obstacles or barriers. This brings to mind Fullerton’s suggestions about playtesting. It is entirely possible that Runescape’s original designer – Andrew Gower envisioned rigid ‘to the death’ combat scenarios (valuing preparation, and strategy). However, player tendencies (e.g. curiosity and exploration) led to a more dynamic conception of strategy, which added flight, and avoidance to fight events. Flexibility and a willingness to adapt have allowed this rather unique tactic to flourish as a somewhat tacit aspect of Runescape culture.

There are no explicit win conditions, save for the narrative-laden Quests that a player may opt to begin. Goals, and win-conditions are largely self-determined. Some view skill mastery as a goal (i.e. “maxing out”), while others may choose to try and maximize their resources, defeat other players in combat, attain certain items, complete quests, play mini-games, or socialize. There is an explicit loss condition when a player loses all of their health points. This results in a ‘respawn’ where all new players enter the game (a relatively safe location), and (depending on the circumstances of their death) possible loss of held items. Other implied ‘losses’ include poor investment, or receiving disciplinary actions (such as mutes, or account bans).
Another important mechanic is the random number generator (RNG) and drop tables. Greater skill accumulation (in combat or resource-gathering skills) results in better position along the mentioned performance/”age” line. However, in order to maintain interest, and/or competitive balance an element of randomness is introduced to most activities via RNG. The RNG-driven drop tables also greatly impact the game economy. That is, it determines the probable amounts of resources and items that ‘enter’ the game through player actions.

One instance of gameplay based on relative isolation (in contrast to interaction) is worth mentioning. The developers noticed a trend emerging (The Runescape Wiki 2014): For whatever reason (added challenge, etc.) players would not engage in trade with others. Instead they would look to ‘perform’ the game under a self-imposed ruleset of self-sufficiency. This led to the official instantiation of the Iron(wo)man game mode, with official restrictions and an accompanying player title.

'''Update'''

The following are some ideas that expand the discussion to include some of the learning content and readings. Concepts about digital games and situated learning/cognition come out via the movement-exploration mechanic of RS. Controlling the avatar character allows for a learning that is "an outcome of the interaction between an individual and the environment or social setting" (Marone, 4). In addition to being a primary driver of narrative, movement and exploration via the player character avatar also produce a hybridization with the player user. This is further supported by other facets of the game such as the extensive customization of avatar aesthetics, which serve to visually connect player and avatar. A nice, combined example of visual, movement-based hybridization is also present in the game in the form of gestures known as emotes. Examples include waving, cheering, thinking or various skill-related emotes. Most emotes can be used for various non-textual communications with other players or NPCs.

Declarative knowledge application (though there are a few examples) recedes into the background of RS for the most part, while procedural knowledge tends to come to the fore.
The tacit movement skills, such as the barrier trapping mentioned above, illustrate a procedural knowledge application. Though it can be communicated, it still is relatively non-declarative. A case of "you know it when you see it". Successful application requires ''performance'', but few probably understand or even know of the underlying mechanics of a pathfinding algorithm. Anecdotally: 'luck' and observation may play a major role as conditions for this type of learning, unless the player has the benefit of social connection with existing players. Still, it is one of those digital skills/activities for which successful performance might be based on a feel, and reflexive response to certain visual cues, rather than adherence to strict instruction.

Relatively recently - developer and community posts began to refer to the RNG's role in the item-drop, or "loot" system (in response to player community curiosity). Shortly after - either out of comedy, ignorance, etc. - players have since coined the phrase "I used up all my RNG" to refer to an instance or series of perceived "bad luck" where RNG is thought to play a part. Regardless of its inaccuracy, this phrase may be grounded in some sort of declarative knowledge about probabilities, yet its use is entirely grounded in procedural knowledge (i.e. prior experience of dynamically determined probable outcomes).
Attempts to make procedural probability knowledge declarative are ongoing both in/outside of the game. Within: developers have released statistical tracking add-ons, that can help a player manage personal probabilistic data. Outwith: community sites (including wikis) attempt to perform the same knowledge gathering - but with it wholly determined (i.e. composed of multiple players' contributed data).

'''References'''

MisplacedMe (2019). “Runescape Player Count by Qtr Hr" Accessed at: http://www.misplaceditems.com/rs_tools/graph/

The Runescape Wiki (2014). "Ironman & Drop Table Reworks" Accessed at: https://runescape.fandom.com/wiki/Update:Ironman_%26_Drop_Table_Reworks

Marone (2016). "Playful Constructivism: Making Sense of Digital Games for Learning and Creativity Through Play, Design, and Participation" ''Journal of Virtual Worlds Research'' Vol. 9(3).

== Production 5 ==
Opt. 2: Play/Games definition a la H & C + Investigation via a Game

Personally, my favorite concept which represents play is that its nature cannot be determined and/or explained through scientific principles, and modes of investigation. Perhaps related, is play’s lack of moral function (Huizinga, 102). Play is also primary. I use primary in the sense of cognitive, but also evolutionary development in the same spirit as when Huizinga and Caillois refer to young children and animals. Primary often connotes an inferiority relative to the more-developed (not a sentiment I agree with mind you, i.e. “simple is hard”; “K.I.S.S.”; etc.). The notion of more-developed (anti-play) manifests as serious, daily-life, or boring types of activities. Usually these activities (even in complex examples like serious play) hinge on some aspect of society, or culture (e.g. economy, social status/class, etc.). I recall reading some research – I cannot remember the exact field, but perhaps it was psychology – that put forth an interesting finding. That is that biological adults needing to perform serious, and “adult” activities (and more importantly, to be ''seen performing'' these activities) indicates a fundamentally childish characteristic, or desire. Note: that this extension of play vs. seriousness includes this research not as an indictment of adult-serious, or play-childish executive function. It is more meant to question the performativity of play vs. seriousness, and the rigid linear model that is always applied to what is clearly a subjective spectrum composed of multiple factors such as enjoyment, and utility. Consider that some experience a genuinely dizzying vertigo from the play of effective accounting. Some approach it as a mimetic activity that straddles play/the serious. Yet some others treat it as an entirely boring, serious activity.
Thus Caillois’ work is helpful as a framework for what might be termed ''applications of play''. Furthermore, these applications are self- or co-determined expressions. Obviously this definition requires additional research, and distillation, and may be best openly presented as an ongoing exercise.

Therefore: 
Play is a primary application of subjective, or ''labile'' expression. It is devoid of moral function, and relatively slippery for analysis by systematic, rational modes of enquiry.

The game I will test this definition upon, is Halo: Reach (HR). The game features a variety of ludus and paidia according to various modes of play. There a number of game modes ranging from the story-driven campaign, to survival scenarios, to custom, and competitive multiplayer. I will explore some of the game mechanics, and coded preferences for subjective expression which can be controlled by a player to some extent. The best “in” to these mechanics is through HR’s multiplayer-mode “matchmaking” system. In addition to persistent local area network (LAN) multiplayer, HR is the third installment of the franchise which features online competitive/co-operative game play. In this installment, players are able to tailor their probable player network for the next game they join, based on four qualities under the banner of ‘Psych Profile’: 
Chattiness. Binary option for preference of chatty, or quiet teammates. 
Motivation. Binary option for preference of winning, or good-time seeking teammates. 
Teamwork. Binary option for preference of team player, or lone wolf teammates. 
Tone. Binary option for preference of rowdy, or polite chatting teammates. 

Multiplayer games offer various outlets for social expression, and rules and social controls (such as the psych profile) serve to introduce lability and customization of the player experience. While being a very play-centric concept, it also hits on the above definition’s caveat of lack of moral function. HR’s social controls remove certain groups of players. This brings to mind exclusionary practices, which are certainly prevalent in games of all types, and often made explicit in the case of childrens’ lusory preference setting. It is not uncommon to hear of games which restrict participation from the outset (or even during play) for apt, or arbitrary reasons. For example, potential players may be excluded from a game for reasons of social status, their hygienic perception, so-called “competitive balance”, or any other indicator. In HR social controls are based on indicators which are quantified and referred to as metrics. The social control condition of play thus shifts from being based in public personal/co-determined subjective opinion, or objective truths – to a digital environment that enforces social relations in a private, probabilistic manner.

It is perhaps ironic, that the campaign narrative, which is structured around a variety of individual team-member play styles does not allow for the same dynamic preference setting as the multiplayer match-making experience. One may engage in prescribed teamwork-, or ‘lone-wolf-’ style campaign missions, but can rarely break the mould, or effect AI/NPC social traits such as chattiness or motivation. In addition to network customization, HR offers play as a medium for subjective expression by (an albeit limited) customization of the player’s multiplayer avatar. These customizations effect many forms of expression such as gender, voice (patterned after some campaign characters) as well as the player’s armour form, colour, and markings. Furthermore, customizations can include capabilities which affect the competitive quality or style of play. A player may select one default special ability or swap them at will in certain games modes. This leads to a relatively unknown element in multiplayer matches in terms of specific ability distribution. This is perhaps the developers’ best effort at introducing a dynamic means of expression which varies based on different interactions with the game as a system.

An interesting claim provided in the explanation of multiplayer network settings is that (in all cases): “changing preferred [setting] will not affect search times.” This is perhaps an indication of the contemporary developer wisdom which suggests that players value a gaming experience with little down-time between games/rounds. If the disclaimer is accepted as true, it also may indicate that the valuation of speed exceeds that of these various social qualities.

Huizinga (1955). “Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Homo Ludens) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via Beacon Press.''

Caillois (1961). “The Definition of Play and The Classification of Games”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Man, Play and Games) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via University of Illinois Press''

== Meta-Reading Notes ==
Coming soon (working on digitization)...

== Other Content ==
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTOXDnX-HA Edmund's Game Proposal 7/2/2019]

(Forgot to mention '''Possible tools!''')

RPGmaker: for easy/built-in item, or resource manager

Unity: 3D/more visual detail, agent pathfinding (for if a Pikmin-style game)

'''Reference Links:'''

[https://www.catan.com/game/catan-scenarios-oil-springs Catan OilSprings Expansion]

[https://www.pcgamesn.com/hellblade-senuas-sacrifice/hellblade-documentary Hellblade Article]

== My UserPage ==
[https://www.refugeesrespond.org/dadaabwikimedia/index.php?title=User:Edmund]

Edmund's Page

2019-02-28T17:03:53Z

Edmund:

== Production 2 ==

Flow was mentioned a few times throughout Bogost’s book. Having already read some work on the topic of flow, I felt it would be useful to dedicate a separate chapter to its coverage. Bogost referenced an important work on flow by Csikszentmihalyi, and used the term in sections dealing with relaxation, and to a lesser degree in the 'Music' and 'Transit' sections. The latter's mention was albeit, more likely based on a logistical definition such as when referring to traffic rates and volumes of people or goods.

B’s ‘Music’ section, however, is a useful “in” to understanding flow due to its emphasis on timing, and various embodiments. This is supported in athletic, and musical performance literature which espouses the benefits of flow-like states, and recommends rhythmic breathing, and other auditory devices. Many videogamers may find such training and strategies useful as well.

Cz's concept of flow can certainly account for relaxation, and performance. These exist along axes of challenge, and skill (see the diagram).
[[File:File_Challenge_vs_skill_svg_Wikipedia.png|200px|thumb|left|alt text]]
His and other work, also provide first hand accounts which begin to describe flow as a state of unison between body and mind. Other definitions include great concentration, or absorption in an activity at hand.

B's book abounds on many of video games’ experiential aspects. Maybe this is largely subjective (and contrary to what gamification consultants may say), or perhaps there are common aspects of videogames - such as art, music, or kitsch which can appeal (relax, worry, bore, arouse, etc.) broadly.

The general skill requirement of videogames often centres on manipulation of inputs towards an algorithmic end (winning a point, moving an avatar etc.). These inputs consist of embodied activities such as precise, ordered manipulation of buttons, joysticks, or other devices. The activities themselves, are notably similar to the inputs required in the performance of many musical instruments. Furthermore, whatever might be occurring in-game impresses its own 'reading' challenges as well, and imposes strategic challenges, and an embodied demand of quick input reactions. Exercise games are an especially interesting subset of games, which no doubt increase the physical demand of challenge, skill, and perhaps enjoyment as well.

From discussion of players and roles we know that anyone can fill the protagonists' shoes. Gaming communities are starting to become interested in watching and engaging with these players. Consider the growth in popularity of game streaming and tournament broadcasts. Much like athletic, or musical prowess, flow is an ever-present personal state, or quality. Consequently, flow provides equal opportunity for entertainment and (along with some notable social skills and other factors) is capable of drawing a crowd. The old adage says something along the lines of “it’s not important whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game”. Some of the week 3 reading (Nolan & McBride, etc.) helped shed some light on superficial game-based learning, and gamification. Interest in competition may always remain (wins and losses), but what is starting to compete with results for interest, is the players behind the competition, and their own unique “brand” of play. Put simply, audiences are becoming curious, and captivated by ''how'' certain players play.

== Production 3 ==
This week’s production is roughly split into two sections. These are connections between the trials of the hack-a-game game, and the workshop/game design literature; and an extension of the critique of gamification in digital game-based learning (DGBL).

Fullerton’s book outlines some practical considerations for game design. Communication is listed early on, as “the most important skill” (Fullerton 2008, 5) that designers can develop. This rang true in practice, as nearly all of the activities of the game-hacking exercise with the Space Race game focused on communication. In addition to being most prevalent, it was also the most challenging, and rewarding activity. It was largely unstructured, and undocumented. This may have been appropriate for a small group of first-timers, but one does wonder to what degree such communication is ‘organic’ in professional practice. Fullerton also includes a section dedicated to team communication, and lists formal meetings, or less formal (but still organized) ‘scrums’ as good communication structures. Furthermore Fullerton identifies a set of common specifications, or documents being a big part of the design team’s work, and listed it as key to ‘standardizing’ communication (Fullerton 2008, 15). One can certainly imagine the added challenges if in our relatively ‘fluid’ hack of Space Race, the three designers also approached from different ‘angles’ (e.g. education/background, competencies, vocabulary, etc.).

The Design Process of the hack-a-game game trial was similarly fluid, and seems describable by some combination of playercentric, and iterative. In a way, the trial group did not consider player experience early enough in the process – something Fullerton would prefer (Fullerton 2008, 10-11) – but it seemed to emerge through iteration. A good example is when the group discovered they had greatly extended the length of the game, and reactively swapped scoring, for a ‘last-goal-wins’ mechanic. It is possible that the team was rather lucky with the ‘path’ of hacks chosen. Perhaps an initial idea was not so foundational, and thus did not end up pigeon-holing any subsequent ideas (i.e. into a similar theme, mechanic, etc.). Imagining the Process as an infinity of possible hack-decisions at the outset: surely some of these decisions take on a ‘tree-limb’, or fractal form. For example, decision 1, may only allow for a series of 1a,b,c decisions, and precludes additional decisions of 2, 3, … n. Another point to consider as part of the Process, is that this trial of the hack-a-game game involved an analog game, and therefore required little computational literacy. Certain functions, and conditionals were instantiated, and modified in analog – and it is likely that a digital Design Process would be affected by the group’s competency of enacting these (most certainly in speed, or number of possible hack tests) in a digital format.

In transitioning to a discussion of DGBL, there are opinions, research, and policy which exist on a spectrum between full support, or opposition. One of these is the concept of digital natives, and their perceived (yet not wholly proven) skill with digital technologies. Other supportive arguments seem clear-cut but are murky in their own right. Researchers such as diSessa and Wing see that there “is a growing acknowledgement among educational researchers, computer scientists and teachers that “computational thinking” and algorithmic logic ought to be considered a kind of “core literacy”” (Jenson & Droumeva, 2017). Broadly conceived, an algorithm is a process of problem solving. Is there any risk/complication associated with learning computer science principles through gameplay/design ''only'', especially at a young age? Further to this, one might question if lusory attitudes (an important facet of game play, and development) may be coopted for the facilitation of certain curricula. Bernard Suits defines a lusory attitude as “the player’s adoption of the rule-set of a game” (Nolan & McBride 2014, 599). One specific concern is the potential tension (or worse – passivity) which may result between critical thinking (e.g. challenging norms, questioning society, etc.) and the installation of a series of DGBL rule-sets. This is especially concerning given education’s historical mandate of preparing students for future careers, and curricula around ‘making’ with technology that are purportedly built on an “understanding of the ''good things''” (emphasis added) (Thumlert et al. 2018, 705). At times, this has amounted to little more than superficial ‘gamification’, essentially only serving to extend a curricular desire for another form of accounting. Gamification can and has been installed into professional work settings with varying degrees of success, but it is not yet clear what implications may exist for these so-called digital natives who are soon to enter the workforce.

'''References'''

Fullerton (2008). “Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games”. ''Elsevier''

Jenson & Droumeva (2017). “Revisiting the Media Generation: Youth Media Use and Computational Literacy instruction”.
''E-Learning and Digital Media.'' Vol. 14(4), pp. 212-225.

Nolan & McBride (2014). “Beyond Gamification: Reconceptualizing Game Based Learning in Early Childhood Environments.”
''Information, Communication & Society.'' Vol. 17(5), pp. 594-608.

Thumlert et al. (2018). “Learning Through Game Design: A Production Pedagogy”. ''Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Game-Based Learning ECGBL''

== Production 4 ==
Option 2: De-Composing Runescape

Some brief background: Runescape is a popular MMORPG. Roughly 2000 players can be accommodated on a single game world (server), with an instantaneous average of 100,000 active players (MisplacedMe 2019). A players’ first actions consist of modifying the appearance of their avatar ‘character’ and completing a tutorial of the major facets of the game.

The premise of the game is multifaceted (combat, quest completion/puzzle-solving, construction, mini-games etc.) with an underlying economic resource production/management theme. It is set in the realm of Gielinor – best described as a stylized medieval earth that features fantasy elements (think: Martin’s continental setting for the Game of Thrones series, or Tolkien’s setting of Middle Earth).
Implicit in the combat, and resource gathering mechanics is a sense of linear progression from reality-inspired, to fantasy-inspired. This perhaps parallels a model of scientific innovation, ''or'' historical “ages” of production that connote some ‘better’ performance. For example, the earliest accessible metals (bronze or iron) correspond to a low level of combat weapon damage, or armour protection, and resource gathering speed/efficiency. Higher level, better performing metals consist of adamant (‘borrowed’ from mythology, and Marvel comics lore), rune, and dragon (‘proprietary’), to name a few. The association of linear progress with performance/efficiency may reinforce a few pedagogies about innovation (e.g. it always or is only to be found in the future).

The rule sets and systems are conceptually quite simple. They are made complex or dynamic by the interactions (or lack thereof*) with other players or non-player characters.

The primary mechanic is movement. It is constrained to an orthogonal grid within the player’s field of view, and performed through clicking a chosen destination. A pathfinding routine is then called, and the player’s movement is animated. This is one of the earliest remaining ‘foundational’ elements of Runescape and has influenced gameplay in numerous ways. Foremost, it rewards exploration into the unknown – the initial location of the game caters to learning, and low-level play. Furthermore, over time and with practice, players discover how to manipulate pathfinding mechanics, and (more importantly) that of NPCs. A key combat skill (but one that may never be formalized through the tutorial) is the ability to attract and trap an aggressive NPC or player behind obstacles or barriers. This brings to mind Fullerton’s suggestions about playtesting. It is entirely possible that Runescape’s original designer – Andrew Gower envisioned rigid ‘to the death’ combat scenarios (valuing preparation, and strategy). However, player tendencies (e.g. curiosity and exploration) led to a more dynamic conception of strategy, which added flight, and avoidance to fight events. Flexibility and a willingness to adapt have allowed this rather unique tactic to flourish as a somewhat tacit aspect of Runescape culture.

There are no explicit win conditions, save for the narrative-laden Quests that a player may opt to begin. Goals, and win-conditions are largely self-determined. Some view skill mastery as a goal (i.e. “maxing out”), while others may choose to try and maximize their resources, defeat other players in combat, attain certain items, complete quests, play mini-games, or socialize. There is an explicit loss condition when a player loses all of their health points. This results in a ‘respawn’ where all new players enter the game (a relatively safe location), and (depending on the circumstances of their death) possible loss of held items. Other implied ‘losses’ include poor investment, or receiving disciplinary actions (such as mutes, or account bans).
Another important mechanic is the random number generator (RNG) and drop tables. Greater skill accumulation (in combat or resource-gathering skills) results in better position along the mentioned performance/”age” line. However, in order to maintain interest, and/or competitive balance an element of randomness is introduced to most activities via RNG. The RNG-driven drop tables also greatly impact the game economy. That is, it determines the probable amounts of resources and items that ‘enter’ the game through player actions.

One instance of gameplay based on relative isolation (in contrast to interaction) is worth mentioning. The developers noticed a trend emerging (The Runescape Wiki 2014): For whatever reason (added challenge, etc.) players would not engage in trade with others. Instead they would look to ‘perform’ the game under a self-imposed ruleset of self-sufficiency. This led to the official instantiation of the Iron(wo)man game mode, with official restrictions and an accompanying player title.

'''Update'''

The following are some ideas that expand the discussion to include some of the learning content and readings. Concepts about digital games and situated learning/cognition come out via the movement-exploration mechanic of RS. Controlling the avatar character allows for a learning that is "an outcome of the interaction between an individual and the environment or social setting" (Marone, 4). In addition to being a primary driver of narrative, movement and exploration via the player character avatar also produce a hybridization with the player user. This is further supported by other facets of the game such as the extensive customization of avatar aesthetics, which serve to visually connect player and avatar. A nice, combined example of visual, movement-based hybridization is also present in the game in the form of gestures known as emotes. Examples include waving, cheering, thinking or various skill-related emotes. Most emotes can be used for various non-textual communications with other players or NPCs.

Declarative knowledge application (though there are a few examples) recedes into the background of RS for the most part, while procedural knowledge tends to come to the fore.
The tacit movement skills, such as the barrier trapping mentioned above, illustrate a procedural knowledge application. Though it can be communicated, it still is relatively non-declarative. A case of "you know it when you see it". Successful application requires ''performance'', but few probably understand or even know of the underlying mechanics of a pathfinding algorithm. Anecdotally: 'luck' and observation may play a major role as conditions for this type of learning, unless the player has the benefit of social connection with existing players. Still, it is one of those digital skills/activities for which successful performance might be based on a feel, and reflexive response to certain visual cues, rather than adherence to strict instruction.

Relatively recently - developer and community posts began to refer to the RNG's role in the item-drop, or "loot" system (in response to player community curiosity). Shortly after - either out of comedy, ignorance, etc. - players have since coined the phrase "I used up all my RNG" to refer to an instance or series of perceived "bad luck" where RNG is thought to play a part. Regardless of its inaccuracy, this phrase may be grounded in some sort of declarative knowledge about probabilities, yet its use is entirely grounded in procedural knowledge (i.e. prior experience of dynamically determined probable outcomes).
Attempts to make procedural probability knowledge declarative are ongoing both in/outside of the game. Within: developers have released statistical tracking add-ons, that can help a player manage personal probabilistic data. Outwith: community sites (including wikis) attempt to perform the same knowledge gathering - but with it wholly determined (i.e. composed of multiple players' contributed data).

'''References'''

MisplacedMe (2019). “Runescape Player Count by Qtr Hr" Accessed at: http://www.misplaceditems.com/rs_tools/graph/

The Runescape Wiki (2014). "Ironman & Drop Table Reworks" Accessed at: https://runescape.fandom.com/wiki/Update:Ironman_%26_Drop_Table_Reworks

Marone (2016). "Playful Constructivism: Making Sense of Digital Games for Learning and Creativity Through Play, Design, and Participation" ''Journal of Virtual Worlds Research'' Vol. 9(3).

== Production 5 ==
Opt. 2: Play/Games definition a la H & C + Investigation via a Game

Personally, my favorite concept which represents play is that its nature cannot be determined and/or explained through scientific principles, and modes of investigation. Perhaps related, is play’s lack of moral function (Huizinga, 102). Play is also primary. I use primary in the sense of cognitive, but also evolutionary development in the same spirit as when Huizinga and Caillois refer to young children and animals. Primary often connotes an inferiority relative to the more-developed (not a sentiment I agree with mind you, i.e. “simple is hard”; “K.I.S.S.”; etc.). The notion of more-developed (anti-play) manifests as serious, daily-life, or boring types of activities. Usually these activities (even in complex examples like serious play) hinge on some aspect of society, or culture (e.g. economy, social status/class, etc.). I recall reading some research – I cannot remember the exact field, but perhaps it was psychology – that put forth an interesting finding. That is that biological adults needing to perform serious, and “adult” activities (and more importantly, to be ''seen performing'' these activities) indicates a fundamentally childish characteristic, or desire. Note: that this extension of play vs. seriousness includes this research not as an indictment of adult-serious, or play-childish executive function. It is more meant to question the performativity of play vs. seriousness, and the rigid linear model that is always applied to what is clearly a subjective spectrum composed of multiple factors such as enjoyment, and utility. Consider that some experience a genuinely dizzying vertigo from the play of effective accounting. Some approach it as a mimetic activity that straddles play/the serious. Yet some others treat it as an entirely boring, serious activity.
Thus Caillois’ work is helpful as a framework for what might be termed ''applications of play''. Furthermore, these applications are self- or co-determined expressions. Obviously this definition requires additional research, and distillation, and may be best openly presented as an ongoing exercise.

Therefore:
Play is a primary application of subjective, or ''labile'' expression. It is devoid of moral function, and relatively slippery for analysis by systematic, rational modes of enquiry.

The game I will test this definition upon, is Halo: Reach (HR). The game features a variety of ludus and paidia according to various modes of play. There a number of game modes ranging from the story-driven campaign, to survival scenarios, to custom, and competitive multiplayer. I will explore some of the game mechanics, and coded preferences for subjective expression which can be controlled by a player to some extent. The best “in” to these mechanics is through HR’s multiplayer-mode “matchmaking” system. In addition to persistent local area network (LAN) multiplayer, HR is the third installment of the franchise which features online competitive/co-operative game play. In this installment, players are able to tailor their probable player network for the next game they join, based on four qualities under the banner of ‘Psych Profile’:

Chattiness. Binary option for preference of chatty, or quiet teammates.
Motivation. Binary option for preference of winning, or good-time seeking teammates.
Teamwork. Binary option for preference of team player, or lone wolf teammates.
Tone. Binary option for preference of rowdy, or polite chatting teammates.

Multiplayer games offer various outlets for social expression, and rules and social controls (such as the psych profile) serve to introduce lability and customization of the player experience. While being a very play-centric concept, it also hits on the above definition’s caveat of lack of moral function. HR’s social controls remove certain groups of players. This brings to mind exclusionary practices, which are certainly prevalent in games of all types, and often made explicit in the case of childrens’ lusory preference setting. It is not uncommon to hear of games which restrict participation from the outset (or even during play) for apt, or arbitrary reasons. For example, potential players may be excluded from a game for reasons of social status, their hygienic perception, so-called “competitive balance”, or any other indicator. In HR social controls are based on indicators which are quantified and referred to as metrics. The social control condition of play thus shifts from being based in public personal/co-determined subjective opinion, or objective truths – to a digital environment that enforces social relations in a private, probabilistic manner.

It is perhaps ironic, that the campaign narrative, which is structured around a variety of individual team-member play styles does not allow for the same dynamic preference setting as the multiplayer match-making experience. One may engage in prescribed teamwork-, or ‘lone-wolf-’ style campaign missions, but can rarely break the mould, or effect AI/NPC social traits such as chattiness or motivation. In addition to network customization, HR offers play as a medium for subjective expression by (an albeit limited) customization of the player’s multiplayer avatar. These customizations effect many forms of expression such as gender, voice (patterned after some campaign characters) as well as the player’s armour form, colour, and markings. Furthermore, customizations can include capabilities which affect the competitive quality or style of play. A player may select one default special ability or swap them at will in certain games modes. This leads to a relatively unknown element in multiplayer matches in terms of specific ability distribution. This is perhaps the developers’ best effort at introducing a dynamic means of expression which varies based on different interactions with the game as a system.

An interesting claim provided in the explanation of multiplayer network settings is that (in all cases): “changing preferred [setting] will not affect search times.” This is perhaps an indication of the contemporary developer wisdom which suggests that players value a gaming experience with little down-time between games/rounds. If the disclaimer is accepted as true, it also may indicate that the valuation of speed exceeds that of these various social qualities.

Huizinga (1955). “Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Homo Ludens) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via Beacon Press.''

Caillois (1961). “The Definition of Play and The Classification of Games”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Man, Play and Games) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via University of Illinois Press''

== Meta-Reading Notes ==
Coming soon (working on digitization)...

== Other Content ==
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTOXDnX-HA Edmund's Game Proposal 7/2/2019]

(Forgot to mention '''Possible tools!''')

RPGmaker: for easy/built-in item, or resource manager

Unity: 3D/more visual detail, agent pathfinding (for if a Pikmin-style game)

'''Reference Links:'''

[https://www.catan.com/game/catan-scenarios-oil-springs Catan OilSprings Expansion]

[https://www.pcgamesn.com/hellblade-senuas-sacrifice/hellblade-documentary Hellblade Article]

== My UserPage ==
[https://www.refugeesrespond.org/dadaabwikimedia/index.php?title=User:Edmund]

Edmund's Page

2019-02-23T19:53:31Z

Edmund: /* Production 4 */

Edmund's Page

2019-02-23T19:50:04Z

Edmund: /* Production 4 */

Immerge

2019-02-22T22:11:04Z

Edmund:

'''Immerge 7/2/2019'''

'''"Simulation Group" - From the big paper:'''

== Premise ==

Global Warming scenario (specifically flooding)

Perspective still unknown (3rd/1st Person probably)

Mechanic, and eventual win condition based on survival and building

Symbols, informative objects, and environmental storytelling are also possible narrative devices.

== Mechanics/Winning ==
The survival and building mechanics occur along a 'realistic' time line. There are definite goals/constraints based on time (finding food/water sources, getting a first shelter/HQ built). Furthermore, many changes that make the environment that much more complex, dangerous, accessible etc. are based on normal rhythms of day/night, tides, (perhaps even seasonal?), and 'random' events of weather, or future/chained catastrophes.

Survival and building are broad mechanics, and additional mentions include collaborative puzzle/problem solving, operating with stealth, racing, etc. Building involves objects materials and resources, tools, and 'outcome' objects (a boat, filtration system, etc.).

Collaboration is a major theme - as there will be a cast of controllable characters, and non-player characters. Characters have generic and unique skills (strength, crafting ability, dexterity, etc.) which may overlap either of survival or building goals. Skill 'trees' were mentioned to also provide some sense of character development/progression.

Exploration is another major factor. A 'do-nothing' policy is rarely good for driving narrative, and/or character motivations. This is especially relevant in the resource-scarce environment of the flood.

== Interwoven Character Team ==

This will be a narrative, and control/simulation mechanic. We are envisioning a 'party' system (say 3-5 characters) that may be controlled on an individual basis by the player, and also through their character interactions (requesting assistance from, directing, ignoring other characters, etc).
Another interesting possibility was raised regarding motivations of party members.

The narrative aspect of this, is that the characters each have different perspectives and information. This is historical and ongoing. During play they are not in constant contact and one or more may leave the immediate party to explore, leave because they are upset with another party member, are on a mission, etc. If the character(s) return, they will usually also bring information which continues to drive the story. This could be relatively 'important' information that drives the story, or goals; or more peripheral information that may aid with narrative character development, or historical understanding of events.

'''New Stuff'''
== Procedural Rhetoric ==

Global warming has become an abstract discussion about future consequences of our present actions, which largely takes place in the theatre of the mind and therefore remote from our experience. Even erratic weather patterns and extreme temperatures are attributed to incremental rise in the earths average temperature, our relative distance from the more extreme experiences allows us space from the immediacy of the experience. To this end, there is deliberately nothing fantastical about the setting nor the tasks in the game. It situates the player in what most experts agree will the consequences of global warming (massive flooding) and having to solve the problems of basic survival that are predictable in a post-ecological apocalypse scenario, including scarcity of resources, and the interpersonal dynamics that come when survival is not a given. While skills trees are one possibility for character development, gameplay may be more intriguing (or more realistic) if the player does not actually gain artificially-increased abilities, and must instead face each task with what can be scrounged, negotiated (through collaboration, or through coercion - each having its own consequences).

While the player is in direct control of one character, this can alternate. The game's AI would influence what a character does when not under direct control by the player, which would be based on what the player was asked to do - and how successful they were at doing it, while under the player's control. The goal here would be to use the players to emulate plausible reactions to the situation, so that even if the player themselves sees it as "just a game", the other characters may sensitize the player to "their" experience - perhaps even to the point where the player could not control them to do certain things, if it was not "in character".

----
On your first point - I can point you to some good climate change/mitigation research that has coined the phrase 'Defensible Drama'. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255570495_Can_Visualisation_Save_the_World_-_Lessons_for_Landscape_Architects_from_Visualizing_Local_Climate_Change
There's a whole host of learning around aesthetics, and imaginaries that may also be useful. I think we will look at one example later in the course readings (the arma3 renewable energy backdrop future)

== Things that are learnt in this game ==

Given the nature of the game's setting - a post-apocalyptic scenario from the detriments of global warming; it provides a parallel to contemporary challenges that humanity is constantly faced with. In Flanagan's idea of "critical play", she writes: "critical play means to create or occupy play environments and activities that represent one or more questions about aspects of human life" (Flanagan, 2009). In sitting with this concept of critical play, this game has the potential to create a deeper thinking around the issues of global warming. As you play through what it would be like to perhaps be immersed within this type of environment and struggle to maintain living, the player would develop empathy and a greater appreciation of the circumstance that they are afforded to live in.

Another Space Game in Twine

2019-02-19T19:09:26Z

Edmund:

This is a Twine-based game (not a final project, just something a student did for a weekly production in an undergrad New Media Literacies Project). I was pretty impressed given the short timeline to learn and create something.

[http://seriousplaylab.com/supertwine/Twine-Kim%20Taruc/Crash%20Landing-Kim%20Taruc.html Crash Landing]

Let me know what you think (critique, possible mods, extension packs, etc. Game shared with permission of the student (kurt)

----

(Edmund):I like the aesthetic. Applying this style to the data files would probably look great.

I feel like it is very segmented. We start with the 'explorey' part and getting our ship working, then it is onto analyzing the data files. The second part (where I suppose Science and Planetary analysis is the point of the game) doesn't feel emphasized. I feel like given the premise of a 'sketchy' ship and data files, this could be prolonged with introducing some unknowns and encouraging estimates or logical reasoning (e.g. maybe planet F's temperature is unknown, but we know it is somewhere between planet E and B, and thus 1/2 closer to the sun than B).

Carey Lam

2019-02-19T18:55:47Z

Edmund: /* Game Proposal */

== Biography ==
[[File:DCM_0001.jpeg|200px|thumb|left|]] Hello my name is Carey Lam, I have been at York University for several years at this point. I have done my undergrad in kinesiology and health science, then a bachelors of education and now finally my masters of education. I have always been a gamer at heart, ever since I was little and received my first ever Gameboy with the Pokemon game. My passions and hobbies include hockey, fitness and health, and gaming.

== Production 2 - Competition ==
Option 2: Create another chapter for Bogost’s book
Competition
In the analysis of the term “game” through Jaakko Stenros’ The Game Definition Game: A Review, he explores ten topics of interest that help conceptualize what a “game” might be (Stenros, 2017). One of these topics revolved around the idea of competition and conflict. Within the discussion of this topic as well as one written around “coherence”, he emphasizes how competition is a characteristic that makes up a game (Stenros, 2017).

Taking this into consideration, it is only natural that games have taken the aspect of competitiveness and created games with the purpose of fostering these competitive environments. Take for example the rise of e-sports, which has given way to a whole culture around gaming competition with various styles of games. Such titles within this realm are League of Legends, Counter-Strike Global Offensive, Fortnite, Hearthstone, and many more. [[File:IEM_COLOGNE.jpg]]

What is notably different in these games compared to a less competitive game, is the emphasis of a visual display of some sort that showcases how someone is performing. This can be done on a leaderboard or placement within some ranking system that is visible to all. This further emphasizes the competitive nature within these games, as the rankings are signifiers of one’s ability and knowledge surrounding the specific game. Bogost speaks to this idea of Nolan’s Law which is to create games which are “easy to learn, but hard to master”(Bogost, 2011). This is often true of these particular style of games, the access and ease to playing are very low which allows for a mass audience to pick it up, however to become adept is something that requires not only experience but time. Not only is one having to learn the ins and out of a game, but also account for the actions of others that may be present (opponents and teammates). [[File:League Ranks.PNG|200px|thumb|right]]

Something that can be easily overlooked is how this may give opportunity to ways of creating digital literacy. In the strive towards betterment within the game, some may look to other outlets or forms of media in order to help in this pursuit. By searching the internet, reading guides, watching videos, these players develop a literacy in how they: 1. Find and access resources and 2. How they interpret and use those resources for their improvement needs.

If we revisit things that games can do, Bogost notes in the section pertaining to exercise, how the genre develops rituals which are borrowed from other domains(Bogost, 2011). In the same way that exergames borrow rituals of sport, it can similarly be shown how competitive games may parallel this. From the spectacle of e-sport to the social practices that sports develop (such as creating social micro-environments), they are all encompassed by the games that are present in this realm of games.
When we consider the implications of this for social contexts, again, rituals of sport that are borrowed may exemplify how similar intra- and interpersonal skills are developed. Through the nature of competitiveness, intrapersonal skills such as resilience, perseverance, dedication, attitude, etc are qualities that are developed through the playing of such games. Additionally, these games foster environments where interpersonal skills such as communication, sportsmanship are valuable to ensure success of players.

Sources:
Bogost, I. (2011). How to Do Things with Videogames (1st edition). Minneapolis: Univ Of Minnesota Press.
Stenros, J. (2017). The Game Definition Game: A Review. Vol 12 (6). Sagepub.

== Production 3: Serious Play and Learning: Connections between the Readings and the Hack-A-Game-Game ==
One overarching critique that is presented within the articles is one that echoes the notion of how education is shaped in this notion of a “banking model of education” type of environment (Freire, 1970). Although it was not labeled as such, many of the issues that they refer to deal with some of the dominant discourses that are present within this style of education. “The gamified vision of DGBL that fits best with standardized curriculum is one of competition, achievement and reward structures that reflects what Jackson (1968/1990), and many 596 J. Nolan and M. McBride since, have referred to as a ‘hidden curriculum’ of values and norms in keeping with existing power relations and institutional structures” (Nolan & Mcbride, 2014, p.596). Using this example it highlights many issues that games have run into in that, although being a different medium of generating knowledge it has sometimes further problematized oppressing structures in school which disenfranchises students.

This problematized view of education structure led to reforms in how digital game-based learning approaches may be incorporated. Thumlert at al, spoke to the constructionist views of Papert, which looks at games as an “object to think with” (2018). There are also shortcomings in this thinking which Nolan & McBride allude to; institutions limit what students are able to do on their own, due to the nature of institutions appropriating play as instruments for the achievement of institutional goals or aims while nullifying autonomous play (Nolan & Mcbride, 2014).

In concept, Papert rejected this traditional teaching approach in favour of “enabling children to explore, tinker, and even code in interactive environments: in these contexts, it was argued that children can generate their own “knowledge structures” on the way to, or as bridge to, “formal knowledge” (Thumlert et al, 2018, p705). At the same time, Kafai was also calling out for the need of more social, community-based learning that echoes Papert’s discussion of informal learning communities (Thumlert et al, 2018). Thumlert et al, then propose the use of “production pedagogy” as a pedagogical approach that fills in the gaps that are left with these constructionist views. What is shown through this approach is “production pedagogy as a transformative intervention where games are not simply “objects to think with”, but genuinely public sociotechnical objects to do with, and where that doing is, above all, driven by learners’ present purposes (Thumlert et al, 2018, p.704). Contrasting this back to the notion of “banking model of education” we see how it has transcended this approach as teacher as the all knowing and students as passive entities. Rather students are empowered to have agency, and above all else they are supported in pursuing topics or issues that they find meaningful and relevant to them. In this way, it has moved towards the thinking of “problem posing education” that Freire speaks to as what is needed in education (Freire, 1970).

Nolan & McBride acknowledge the importance of this freedom that is allowed through this type of pedagogy in that “the use of children’s self-selected affinity spaces, such as games they are familiar with and enjoy, offer a context for the kind of open-ended, autonomous and situated meaningful learning that should be a key requirement for the use of DGBL (digital game-based learning) (2014, p.603).

Linking these ideas to our own endeavors with game based-learning, it has been shown the various ways in which different knowledge structures have surfaced, and ways of thinking are explored. Through the autonomy of students engaging in the work, there are numerous approaches to how “hacks” can be implemented based on who is within a group. This allows for free forming thought and collaborative learning around the principle of “making the game more fun”. It also creates construction of knowledge through the experimentation and critical thinking that goes into implementing these ideas in a more meaningful context to those learners engaged in the work. This follows the train of thought that production pedagogy strives to do in making work meaningful and having freedom around things such as autonomy, play, affinity, and space, can create environments that do not reproduce the ingrained institutionalized views of learning.

“Echoing Freire, Malaguzzi and others, de Castell and Jenson (2003b) conclude that ‘without play, education becomes a force of compliance, not intelligence, and in this sense what we most urgently require of schooling today is that it can once again teach us to play, not to obey” (Nolan & McBride, 2014, p.605)

Sources:
Freire, Paulo. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, Herder and Herder.
Nolan, J., & McBride, M. (2014). Beyond gamification: Reconceptualizing game-based learning in early childhood environments. Information, Communication & Society.
Thumlert, K., de Castell, S., & Jenson, J. (2018). Learning through game design: A production pedagogy, The 2018 European Conference on Games Based Learning Book: ACPI Press.

== Production 4 ==

Production 4
Upon reflection of our experience constructing a game in class, it accentuates further this notion of “paidia”, and how it plays a part in constructing knowledge. In this case paidia is parallel to this idea of “play” that Nolan and McBride characterize as one of their dimensions for digital game-based learning. They share similarities in that they both require active engagement from participants, a sense of freedom and spontaneity (Nolan & McBride, ). From the investment that was shown in each game design from the groups, it was evident to see that there was meaningful engagement with the material. As a pedagogical discourse, digital game-based learning, as Jenson notes is “at the forefront about addressing disengagement and developing 21st century learning and skills” (Jenson, 2017, p.213).

To illustrate how this meaningful engagement with the assignment was enacted, it can be demonstrated through Nolan & McBrides “dimensions framework” (2014). The dimensions of autonomy, play, affinity, and space are all components to this framework which encompass the nature of how game-based learning as a principle creates authentic and student-driven work. As noted previously, the dimension of “play” has shown that it was orchestrated in a fashion where students had freedom over what could be done. This directly correlates to the dimension of autonomy, which gives control over to the students to take the exercise or work into their own hands and do what they will with it. Something that Nolan & McBride allude to is through this “the teacher emerges almost spontaneously as whoever has the knowledge, ideas, or inspiration in the moment and the willingness to share” (2014, p.604). This was proven in the designing of our games, as people had many ideas to propose, they become facilitators of learning as they bring unique outlooks to what can be done, how it should be implemented, or modified, which is then shared with their peers.

In terms of the dimension of space, although it was done using a “classroom”, I would say that in the way that the exercise carried on, as well as the autonomy that was given, it transcended what we could describe as “traditional”. The importance in this, is that it was pointed out that the environment which this “situated learning” would take place influences and is influenced by the other dimensions (Nolan & McBride, 2014). As I reiterate, the space itself was one which provided no constraints nor did institutional or instructional constraints hinder the process. With each dimension conjunctively in an ideal state, it creates an environment and affinity to the work at hand, which allows for open-ended, autonomous and meaningful learning which is a key requirement of game-based learning (Nolan & McBride, 2014). This ultimately leads towards this notion of production pedagogy, which critique’s “alienated learning” and counteracts this through the process of giving agency to the learner to determine what is meaningful to them (Thumlert et al, 2018).

Something to highlight is the less prominent focus of game design and development as a way to support critical competencies and digital literacy through creative problem solving, collaboration, and programming skills (Jenson, 2017). As a group working through the design process, there are many voices and factors to account for, which require communication and collaboration which is an emphasis for any design team to strive for (Fullerton, 2014). Unknowingly, we went through this “iterative design process” without even realizing it ourselves at the time. We had gone through the mechanisms to reassure ourselves that the concept was 1. Enjoyable, 2. Playable, and lastly to look for improvements that could be made. In doing so, formal elements such as rules, objectives, resources, and outcomes were being constantly maneuvered or re-shaped in order to create new experiences that had to be tested and re-thought. In the process of doing this, it structures a certain way of thinking broadly referred to as “digital literacy” or more specifically as “computational thinking” (Jenson, 2017). Jenson states: “the true pedagogical and ludic spirit of learning with games ‘resides in the engagement itself and not in its extrinsically defined “learning outcomes”’ (Nolan & McBride, 2014, p.595). In this process, not only were we exposed to some of the intricacies of game-making, however, the experience itself of designing and collaboratively working together sets the stage for more authentic learning to take place, through the collection of knowledge of multiple perspectives and ideas.

Sources:
Fullerton, T. (2014). Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovation Games, NY: Taylor & Francis
Jenson, J. & Droumeva, M. (2017). Revisiting the media generation: Youth media use and computational literacy instruction, eLearning and Digital Media.
Nolan, J., & McBride, M. (2014). Beyond gamification: Reconceptualizing game-based learning in early childhood environments. Information, Communication & Society.
Thumlert, K., de Castell, S., & Jenson, J. (2018). Learning through game design: A production pedagogy, The 2018 European Conference on Games Based Learning Book: ACPI Press.

== Production 5 ==

== Production 6 ==

== Production 7 ==

== Production 8 ==

== Game Proposal ==

Hello everyone I am attaching my video with my thoughts of a potential game, hope you enjoy and have some comments or ideas. https://youtu.be/wzUDhbvpHe4

Edmund: Nice. I was wondering to what extent learning could be incorporated into this game, and I think you have some good ideas.
For the first scenario: Are you thinking along the lines of initial access & limitations (e.g. hat x makes you more elfish so you start with less of currency y, less frequent turns etc.), or is it affecting game play/experiences more consistently?
The unfair start, and a hack (either within the rules or outside them) to make it interesting, address structures, restore balance, etc. is a cool mechanic.

PS I hope you and Miranda are still looking to collaborate down the line. I think I want to do something different for the class project, but it's not entirely different and some stuff may well translate with your work.

Game Proposals

2019-02-19T17:33:20Z

Edmund:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTOXDnX-HA Edmund's Game Proposal 2/7/2019]

'''Possible Tools'''

RPGmaker: for easy/built-in item, or resource manager

Unity: 3D/more visual detail, agent pathfinding (for if a Pikmin-style game)

Reference Links:

[https://www.catan.com/game/catan-scenarios-oil-springs Catan OilSprings Expansion]

[https://www.pcgamesn.com/hellblade-senuas-sacrifice/hellblade-documentary Hellblade Article]

----
[https://youtu.be/wlu0rAskAbQ Ivana's Game Proposal 2/7/2019]

[https://youtu.be/wnhcbN2GVG0 Patrick's Game Proposal]

(Edmund):Hey - I liked your presentation and paper prototype. It helped get the message across. A few ideas you can take or leave:

Perhaps ‘background’ minigames, or other objects of interest can be hints or clues as to what/when to do things. These could let you switch focus (either to help, or distract the player). I remember a good example from school in the form of a long list of test questions with the instructions: Read the Entire Test Before Beginning. The last question simply said ‘Write Your Name, But Don’t Answer Any Questions’ and of course there were only a handful of kids who did this. Come to think of it, some prank mechanics like this might also be useful to you.

I think there’s a lot to play around with in terms of a player’s authority re: time. Maybe you can look into narrative devices like active narration, or characters (protagonist/antagonist) that preach or challenge the patience mechanic.

Immerge

2019-02-14T17:36:08Z

Edmund:

'''Immerge 7/2/2019'''

'''"Simulation Group" - From the big paper:'''

== Premise ==

Global Warming scenario (specifically flooding)

Perspective still unknown (3rd/1st Person probably)

Mechanic, and eventual win condition based on survival and building

Symbols, informative objects, and environmental storytelling are also possible narrative devices.

== Mechanics/Winning ==
The survival and building mechanics occur along a 'realistic' time line. There are definite goals/constraints based on time (finding food/water sources, getting a first shelter/HQ built). Furthermore, many changes that make the environment that much more complex, dangerous, accessible etc. are based on normal rhythms of day/night, tides, (perhaps even seasonal?), and 'random' events of weather, or future/chained catastrophes.

Survival and building are broad mechanics, and additional mentions include collaborative puzzle/problem solving, operating with stealth, racing, etc. Building involves objects materials and resources, tools, and 'outcome' objects (a boat, filtration system, etc.).

Collaboration is a major theme - as there will be a cast of controllable characters, and non-player characters. Characters have generic and unique skills (strength, crafting ability, dexterity, etc.) which may overlap either of survival or building goals. Skill 'trees' were mentioned to also provide some sense of character development/progression.

Exploration is another major factor. A 'do-nothing' policy is rarely good for driving narrative, and/or character motivations. This is especially relevant in the resource-scarce environment of the flood.

== Interwoven Character Team ==

This will be a narrative, and control/simulation mechanic. We are envisioning a 'party' system (say 3-5 characters) that may be controlled on an individual basis by the player, and also through their character interactions (requesting assistance from, directing, ignoring other characters, etc).
Another interesting possibility was raised regarding motivations of party members.

The narrative aspect of this, is that the characters each have different perspectives and information. This is historical and ongoing. During play they are not in constant contact and one or more may leave the immediate party to explore, leave because they are upset with another party member, are on a mission, etc. If the character(s) return, they will usually also bring information which continues to drive the story. This could be relatively 'important' information that drives the story, or goals; or more peripheral information that may aid with narrative character development, or historical understanding of events.

== Procedural Rhetoric ==

Global warming has become an abstract discussion about future consequences of our present actions, which largely takes place in the theatre of the mind and therefore remote from our experience. Even erratic weather patterns and extreme temperatures are attributed to incremental rise in the earths average temperature, our relative distance from the more extreme experiences allows us space from the immediacy of the experience. To this end, there is deliberately nothing fantastical about the setting nor the tasks in the game. It situates the player in what most experts agree will the consequences of global warming (massive flooding) and having to solve the problems of basic survival that are predictable in a post-ecological apocalypse scenario, including scarcity of resources, and the interpersonal dynamics that come when survival is not a given. While skills trees are one possibility for character development, gameplay may be more intriguing (or more realistic) if the player does not actually gain artificially-increased abilities, and must instead face each task with what can be scrounged, negotiated (through collaboration, or through coercion - each having its own consequences).

While the player is in direct control of one character, this can alternate. The game's AI would influence what a character does when not under direct control by the player, which would be based on what the player was asked to do - and how successful they were at doing it, while under the player's control. The goal here would be to use the players to emulate plausible reactions to the situation, so that even if the player themselves sees it as "just a game", the other characters may sensitize the player to "their" experience - perhaps even to the point where the player could not control them to do certain things, if it was not "in character".

----
On your first point - I can point you to some good climate change/mitigation research that has coined the phrase 'Defensible Drama'. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255570495_Can_Visualisation_Save_the_World_-_Lessons_for_Landscape_Architects_from_Visualizing_Local_Climate_Change
There's a whole host of learning around aesthetics, and imaginaries that may also be useful. I think we will look at one example later in the course readings (the arma3 renewable energy backdrop future)

Immerge

2019-02-08T20:25:24Z

Edmund:

Immerge

2019-02-08T20:23:02Z

Edmund: /* Interwoven Character Team */

Immerge

2019-02-08T20:22:49Z

Edmund: /* Interwoven Character Team */

Immerge

2019-02-08T20:22:36Z

Edmund:

Immerge

2019-02-08T20:22:02Z

Edmund:

Immerge

2019-02-08T20:12:21Z

Edmund: /* Interwoven Character Team */

Immerge

2019-02-08T20:11:08Z

Edmund:

Immerge

2019-02-08T20:10:41Z

Edmund: /* Premise */

'''Immerge 7/2/2019'''

'''"Simulation Group - From the big paper:'''

== Premise ==

Global Warming scenario (specifically flooding)

Perspective still unknown (3rd/1st Person probably)

Mechanic, and eventual win condition based on survival and building

Symbols, informative objects, and environmental storytelling are also possible narrative devices.

== Mechanics/Winning ==
The survival and building mechanics occur along a 'realistic' time line. There are definite goals/constraints based on time (finding food/water sources, getting a first shelter/HQ built). Furthermore, many changes that make the environment that much more complex, dangerous, accessible etc. are based on normal rhythms of day/night, tides, (perhaps even seasonal?), and 'random' events of weather, or future/chained catastrophes.

Survival and building are broad mechanics, and additional mentions include collaborative puzzle/problem solving, operating with stealth, racing, etc. Building involves objects materials and resources, tools, and 'outcome' objects (a boat, filtration system, etc.).

Collaboration is a major theme - as there will be a cast of controllable characters, and non-player characters. Characters have generic and unique skills (strength, crafting ability, dexterity, etc.) which may overlap either of survival or building goals. Skill 'trees' were mentioned to also provide some sense of character development/progression.

Exploration is another major factor. A 'do-nothing' policy is rarely good for driving narrative, and/or character motivations. This is especially relevant in the resource-scarce environment of the flood.

== Interwoven Character Team ==
This will be a narrative, and control/simulation mechanic. We are envisioning a 'party' system (say 3-5 characters) that may be controlled on an individual basis by the player, and also through their character interactions (requesting assistance from, directing, ignoring other characters, etc).
Another interesting possibility was raised regarding motivations of party members.

The narrative aspect of this, is that the characters each have different perspectives and information. This is historical and ongoing. During play they are not in constant contact and one or more may leave the immediate party to explore, leave because they are upset with another party member, are on a mission, etc. If the character(s) return, they will usually also bring information which continues to drive the story. This could be relatively 'important' information that drives the story, or goals; or more peripheral information that may aid with narrative character development, or historical understanding of events.

----
I really like the party having individual and group motivations, and these being affected by actions and interactions. However we will have to resolve what we mean by 'use' of a character affecting these motivations. Is it like the AI will continue along a path that you're setting out for the character when you inhabit them? What if a player never switches characters (becomes absorbed in the one they started with, has a favorite, etc.) - Will this lead to stalls in the story? Will certain characters become underskilled, or will the AI 'keep up'?
I also like the focus on exploration - but I think this is also a good way to introduce tension. The smart player will want to balance reckless exploration, with a conservative attitude. Up for discussion of course.
(Edmund)

Immerge

2019-02-08T20:10:16Z

Edmund: Created page with "'''Immerge 7/2/2019''' '''"Simulation Group - From the big paper:''' == Premise == Global Warming scenario (specifically flooding) Perspective still unknown (3rd/1st Perso..."

Edmund's Page

2019-02-07T18:06:09Z

Edmund: /* Other Content */

Edmund's Page

2019-02-07T18:05:52Z

Edmund: /* Other Content */

Game Proposals

2019-02-07T18:05:18Z

Edmund:

Game Proposals

2019-02-07T18:05:03Z

Edmund:

Edmund's Page

2019-02-07T18:04:01Z

Edmund: /* Other Content */

Edmund's Page

2019-02-07T17:49:54Z

Edmund:

Game Proposals

2019-02-07T17:49:10Z

Edmund:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTOXDnX-HA Edmund's Game Proposal 2/7/2019]

Reference Links:

[https://www.catan.com/game/catan-scenarios-oil-springs Catan OilSprings Expansion]

[https://www.pcgamesn.com/hellblade-senuas-sacrifice/hellblade-documentary Hellblade Article]

----

Game Proposals

2019-02-07T17:48:31Z

Edmund:

Game Proposals

2019-02-07T17:41:02Z

Edmund: Created page with "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTOXDnX-HA Edmund's Game Proposal 2/7/2019] ----"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTOXDnX-HA Edmund's Game Proposal 2/7/2019]

----

Chat Room

2019-02-07T17:38:22Z

Edmund:

'''EDUC 5863 Digital Games and Learning Chat Room'''

'''The chat room is an open-forum space for exploring your own interests''' and resources, games experiences and observations, as well as theories and games culture controversies (beyond the always limited purview of any course syllabus).

If you wish, you can always '''extend ideas/critiques in the course readings''' - or ask questions - or interrogate the authors' arguments - ect.

To start a chat, create a wiki entry and the new page will be the chat room for that topic/issue. If you want to add a short description next to the wiki-entry link, feel free to do so.

Also, you may find issues and topics in online cultural/news journals and sites like those below. Feel free to add to the list below with other sites, links to video resources (Youtube, TedTalks - if good, and other sites/communities of interest.

[https://kotaku.com/ Kotaku]
[http://www.gamasutra.com/ Gamasutra]
[http://www.firstpersonscholar.com/ First Person Scholar]
[https://feministfrequency.com/ Feminist Frequency]
[https://www.nymgamer.com NYMG]
[http://gamestudies.org/ Game Studies]

http://www.gamesforchange.org/game/darfur-is-dying/
----

Example Post:

'''[[Heteronormativity and Identity as Hidden Curriculum]]''' This chat is about a recent article from Kotaku on Assassin's Creed's "Family Values"

'''[[Another Space Game in Twine]]''' Link to a playable Space Game

'''[[rebuilding mogadishu]]''' kindly go through my future game plan and give me feedbacks

'''[[Game Proposals]]''' a page to have them all together for viewing, feedback, etc.

Edmund's Page

2019-02-07T17:33:20Z

Edmund: /* Other Content */

Edmund's Page

2019-02-06T20:50:24Z

Edmund: /* Production 4 */

Edmund's Page

2019-01-31T19:28:19Z

Edmund: /* Production 4 */

Edmund's Page

2019-01-31T19:27:40Z

Edmund: /* Production 4 */

Edmund's Page

2019-01-31T19:24:21Z

Edmund: /* Production 4 */

Edmund's Page

2019-01-31T19:23:53Z

Edmund:

Rebuilding mogadishu

2019-01-29T22:25:20Z

Edmund:

Abdikadir Bare Abikar

future game

Hello, friends look at my future rebuilding Mogadishu game, a brief definition of the Mogadishu the city I am basing my future game is that “Mogadishu (Somali: Muqdisho) is the capital city of the African country of Somalia. It is also the largest city in that country. It is located in the coastal Banadir region on the Somali Sea. The city has been an important port for the region for many centuries. Estimates of the city's population are between 1.5 and 3 million people. Mogadishu has had many years of fighting between militias. This is because the government of Somalia fell in 1991.
The city Had all this ups and downs, I am planning to use a gameplay that is named “rebuilding Mogadishu”, and My game is based on the idea that Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, has also been in war for so long and I think using gaming to teach the civilians is the only way out of war and conflict is important, and developing a game model to reconstruct the capital city is one idea I hold on to. Besides that, using Darfur is Dying as a reference, I would also look into the challenges like how accessible it will be, either through the use of mobile devices or as an online like the Darfur is Dying game was played.
And lastly, my planned games is a little bit different in that; it is not a survival game designed by NGOs as Darfur was created, which was to educate and support activities, but a world-building game, where the goal is not survival, but reconstructing unstable Mogadishu. My game will educate players outside of Somalia and Dadaab, the game is designed for Somali players and youth so they can envision and strategize building a new future. Richard has also worked with me in my previous course so this first post I am hoping we can also interact and exchange ideas and thoughts with other classmates. What do you think or thoughts my game will be? How can I make this game working and be used in Somalia? Or what should use, include or avoid from this game?
Please help me your ideas, give me suggestions.

----

Hi Abdikadir,

This game sounds like a really interesting endeavour. In terms of ideas, I actually have a bunch of questions:

- is there a win condition to the game? How will the city be reconstructed as stable?

- what resources do the players have, and how will they be limited?

- what conflict(s) exist in the game?

- if it is cooperate, how does the game work against the players?

- what does a player "do" on their "turn"?

- is there a game you are modelling this after, in terms of how it is constructed/played?

- what do you want the player to feel while/or after playing this game?

I am very happy to offer ideas and give feedback. I am hoping these initial questions are useful!

(Richard)

----

Good general game questions! I think with a future-looking modelling/simulation and story game, defining the aim and the challenges and the story is the first step. What is the premise? What is the story to be told? And what are the interactive choices, challenges, and experiences players might engage (Richard pointed this out above)?

Also - in what role does the player "play"? As a Somali educator? A refugee returning?

Also, can you (Abdikadir) draw upon the history of Mogadishu (it was once a very cosmopolitan city) to consider how the past might shape the future? But also how to address the fundamental conflicts that led to civil war and how to ensure those conflicts do not arise again (through the re-building process, through political and educational institutions that might support an imagined future?)

I think Richard's question - "what do you want the player to feel while/or after playing this game?" - is really important, too (Bogost emapthy games idea).

'''I imagine that this game can't offer any perfect "solution", but you might be able to help players understand the situation and pathways forward. Imagined pathways can help people envision and begin to act together'''

(Kurt)

----
Hi All,

Questions seem on point and will surely help with playercentric design - I look forward to the responses/ideas. I also think that building is a great 'antidote' to war/conflict, and a good theme to start from.

I have a general question that may help define scope. Abdikadir, when you use the terms 're/building' - to what are you referring?

If you want construction and preservation of important buildings and infrastructure, this gets at important themes in social/urban capital assets (people having the shared assets they need to live, work, play, etc.) as well as being obvious markers of history

Maybe you want to improve the general day-to-day life of being a citizen, and its processes as 'building'. For example, getting rid of inefficiency in public transit, increasing transparency and legitimacy in city decision making, etc.

I'm sure there's other interpretations of re/building as well (e.g. fortifying) so let me know if you're thinking something entirely different. (Vocabulary challenges are coming to life as warned in the communication section(s) of Fullerton's workshop resource, haha).

(Edmund)
----

Rebuilding mogadishu

2019-01-29T22:24:57Z

Edmund:

Abdikadir Bare Abikar

future game

Hello, friends look at my future rebuilding Mogadishu game, a brief definition of the Mogadishu the city I am basing my future game is that “Mogadishu (Somali: Muqdisho) is the capital city of the African country of Somalia. It is also the largest city in that country. It is located in the coastal Banadir region on the Somali Sea. The city has been an important port for the region for many centuries. Estimates of the city's population are between 1.5 and 3 million people. Mogadishu has had many years of fighting between militias. This is because the government of Somalia fell in 1991.
The city Had all this ups and downs, I am planning to use a gameplay that is named “rebuilding Mogadishu”, and My game is based on the idea that Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, has also been in war for so long and I think using gaming to teach the civilians is the only way out of war and conflict is important, and developing a game model to reconstruct the capital city is one idea I hold on to. Besides that, using Darfur is Dying as a reference, I would also look into the challenges like how accessible it will be, either through the use of mobile devices or as an online like the Darfur is Dying game was played.
And lastly, my planned games is a little bit different in that; it is not a survival game designed by NGOs as Darfur was created, which was to educate and support activities, but a world-building game, where the goal is not survival, but reconstructing unstable Mogadishu. My game will educate players outside of Somalia and Dadaab, the game is designed for Somali players and youth so they can envision and strategize building a new future. Richard has also worked with me in my previous course so this first post I am hoping we can also interact and exchange ideas and thoughts with other classmates. What do you think or thoughts my game will be? How can I make this game working and be used in Somalia? Or what should use, include or avoid from this game?
Please help me your ideas, give me suggestions.

----

Hi Abdikadir,

This game sounds like a really interesting endeavour. In terms of ideas, I actually have a bunch of questions:

- is there a win condition to the game? How will the city be reconstructed as stable?

- what resources do the players have, and how will they be limited?

- what conflict(s) exist in the game?

- if it is cooperate, how does the game work against the players?

- what does a player "do" on their "turn"?

- is there a game you are modelling this after, in terms of how it is constructed/played?

- what do you want the player to feel while/or after playing this game?

I am very happy to offer ideas and give feedback. I am hoping these initial questions are useful!

(Richard)

----

Good general game questions! I think with a future-looking modelling/simulation and story game, defining the aim and the challenges and the story is the first step. What is the premise? What is the story to be told? And what are the interactive choices, challenges, and experiences players might engage (Richard pointed this out above)?

Also - in what role does the player "play"? As a Somali educator? A refugee returning?

Also, can you (Abdikadir) draw upon the history of Mogadishu (it was once a very cosmopolitan city) to consider how the past might shape the future? But also how to address the fundamental conflicts that led to civil war and how to ensure those conflicts do not arise again (through the re-building process, through political and educational institutions that might support an imagined future?)

I think Richard's question - "what do you want the player to feel while/or after playing this game?" - is really important, too (Bogost emapthy games idea).

'''I imagine that this game can't offer any perfect "solution", but you might be able to help players understand the situation and pathways forward. Imagined pathways can help people envision and begin to act together'''

(Kurt)

----
Hi All,

Questions seem on point and will surely help with playercentric design - I look forward to the responses/ideas. I also think that building is a great 'antidote' to war/conflict, and a good theme to start from.

I have a general question that may help define scope. Abdulkadir, when you use the terms 're/building' - to what are you referring?

If you want construction and preservation of important buildings and infrastructure, this gets at important themes in social/urban capital assets (people having the shared assets they need to live, work, play, etc.) as well as being obvious markers of history

Maybe you want to improve the general day-to-day life of being a citizen, and its processes as 'building'. For example, getting rid of inefficiency in public transit, increasing transparency and legitimacy in city decision making, etc.

I'm sure there's other interpretations of re/building as well (e.g. fortifying) so let me know if you're thinking something entirely different. (Vocabulary challenges are coming to life as warned in the communication section(s) of Fullerton's workshop resource, haha).

(Edmund)
----

Edmund's Page

2019-01-24T17:44:48Z

Edmund: /* Production 3 */

Edmund's Page

2019-01-24T17:37:43Z

Edmund: /* Production 3 */

Edmund's Page

2019-01-24T17:36:29Z

Edmund: /* Production 3 */

Edmund's Page

2019-01-24T17:35:58Z

Edmund: /* Production 3 */