Douglas Wilson’s PhD dissertation: Designing for the Pleasures of Disputation

I missed this the first time around, but Douglas Wilson has posted his PhD dissertation, Designing for the Pleasures of Disputation.

Abstract

Designing for the Pleasures of Disputation -or- How to make friends by trying to kick them!

In this dissertation I explore what it might mean to design games that aim to nurture a spirit oftogetherness. My central claim is that games which are intentionally designed to be confrontational, broken, or otherwise “incomplete” can help inspire a decidedly festive, co-dependent, and performative type of play. Appropriating the political theoretical work of Hannah Arendt, I argue that her concepts of “action” and “plurality” provide useful definitions of performance and togetherness as they relate to gameplay. Drawing primarily on theories of embodied interaction, precedents from the contemporary art world, and various folk game movements, I grapple with the messy relationship between designed systems and sociocultural context. I describe how confronting this relationship head-on opens up fruitful design opportunities. Taking seriously Dave Hickey’s concept of “the pleasures of disputation,” I explore how we players and designers might transmute the acrimony of conflict into something joyful.

Via Doug’s original blog post about the dissertation.

More protection for game design

Following the Tetris lawsuit and the ongoing EA-Zynga lawsuit, Greg Lastowka comments on the ruling in the Triple Town / Yeti Town cloning case.

Here is what Greg says:

So… to the extent that a game idea is embodied in “objective elements of expression” that resemble “plot, theme, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, and character,” those things are not an “idea” and may be within the scope of copyright.  But how do we distinguish between “objective elements of expression” and the “idea” in Triple Town?  The idea part of Triple Town seems to be set forth above, but what are the “objective elements” of Triple Town?  The court doesn’t spell this out in the abstract so much as it demonstrates its understanding by applying it to the facts:

“Spry Fox’s allegations are more than adequate to illustrate plausibly the objectively similar expression embodied in Yeti Town. The object hierarchy is similar. Progressing from grass to bush to tree to hut is similar to progressing from sapling to tree to tent to cabin. Perhaps more importantly, the object hierarchy coupled with the depiction of the field of play comprise a setting and theme that is similar to Triple Town’s. A snowfield is not so different from a meadow, bears and yetis are both wild creatures, and the construction of a “plain” is not plausibly similar to the construction of a “patch,” at least as the two games depict those terms. Whether 6Waves’s choice of language in its dialog boxes is similar enough to Spry Fox’s is a closer question, but it is a least plausibly similar. There are apparent differences between games (for example, yetis are not bears and “bots” are not campfires), but a court must focus on what is similar, not what is different, when comparing two works.”

Did you follow that analysis?  The court has said that “hierarchical matching” is an idea above.  But here the court seems to place the particular “object hierarchy” within the scope of copyright. Bears are not yetis — but Yeti Town resembles Triple Town in that it mirrors a “wild creature” object within the hierarchy.  Snowfields are not meadows, but again, this is just swapping out one object for a similar object that can fit in the same slot in the hierarchy.  And the end result creates a similar “setting and theme.” I think I get what the court is doing here, but Eric says it “isn’t entirely clear” and Marty concurs about the ambiguity.

And no, nothing is settled here, since it is not specified what “similar setting and theme” is. But it does give a little more protection for game designs (and we can continue to discuss whether or not that is a good thing).

Get your Theory Fix: Game Studies 12/01 out

Technology Trees: Freedom and Determinism in Historical Strategy Games

by Tuur Ghys

This article deals with the representation of the history of technology in historical strategy games by the use of evolutionary tree diagrams called technology trees, in relation to the concept of technological determinism. It does so by comparing four important strategy games: Age of Empires, Empire Earth, Rise of Nations and Civilization IV.[more]

*

Tombstones, Uncanny Monuments and Epic Quests: Memorials in World of Warcraft

by Martin Gibbs, Joji Mori, Michael Arnold, Tamara Kohn

In this paper memorials in World of Warcraft are described and analysed. The repertoires of materials used to build these memorials within the game world are discussed. We argue that game designers draw on diverse cultural materials to create memorials that resemble and allude to traditional and contemporary forms of memorialization.[more]

*

Constitutive Tensions of Gaming’s Field: UK gaming magazines and the formation of gaming culture 1981-1995

by Graeme Kirkpatrick

The paper describes a study of UK gaming magazines in the 1980s and 90s. It argues that a structural transformation of gaming discourse can be discerned in these publications, one which has been fateful both for our understanding of what computer games are and for the identity of the modern ‘gamer’.[more]

*

The Agony and the Exidy: A History of Video Game Violence and the Legacy of Death Race

by Carly A. Kocurek

Released in 1976, Exidy’s Death Race precipitated the first moral panic in video gaming. The incident resonates with contemporary debates about video gaming and provides insight into the evolution of violent games as a topic of special concern for moral guardians and the industry.[more]

*

“Interactive Cinema” Is an Oxymoron, but May Not Always Be

by Kevin Veale

This article engages with the critical history of ‘interactive cinema’ as a term in order to explore why it has been so problematic, and uses close analysis of case-studies in the context of their affective experience to argue for a class of game texts that are neither ‘watched’ nor ‘played.’[more]
*

Pretty Hate Machines: A Review of Gameplay Mode

by Ian Bogost

Gameplay Mode: War, Simulation, and Technoculture. Patrick Crogan, 2011. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-5334-8[more]

Introducing the Not Helvetica Collection

We love Helvetica! We really do!

But do you ever feel uneasy over its excessively clean lines?

Suspicious of the self-conscious foot of the upper case R?

Disturbed by the smug purists who think they have found the Eight Wonder of the World?

Then I have something for you.

A wholly frivolous side project, I present to you the NotHelvetica collection: a modest line of apparel and household objects featuring classic good-taste fonts like Helvetica, Bauhaus, and Futura … only in, well, other fonts like Comic Sans, or Old English, or Rosewood.

 Get the T-shirt.

The iPhone 5 case.

The cosmetic bag.

And more! All customizable.

http://www.not-helvetica.com/

Thanks!

-Jesper

PS. For the truly daring contrarian, the Helvetica in Arial T-shirt is now available!

Bennett Foddy Speaks at the Game Center

This Friday, 9/28 at 7PM game designer and Professor of Bioethics, Bennett Foddy, will be speaking at the NYU Game Center.  The topic of discussion will be Bennett’s high-level creative procedures for ideation, his iterative design process, and rules of thumb for solid creative process.  Students and practitioners are encouraged to join us for this unique opportunity for learning and close dialogue with the creator of sucessful games like QWOP, GIRP, and Pole Riders.  A selection of Bennett’s games will be available for play at the event.

Please RSVP here.

This event is the first in a series of informal talks and dialogues on varied topics around games that will be happening on the 9th Floor of 721 Broadway throughout the semester.  As with our Lecture Series, these talks are free and open to the public.  Look for more news on 9th Floor talks on game theory, video game art, LARPs, and much more.  We encourage you to bring friends and colleagues with interest in games and to come with questions for the speakers.

PRACTICE Speakers and Schedule Updated

 You’re invited to the premier game design conference, PRACTICE: Game Design in Detail!

On November 9th-11th join us at the New York University Game Center for a weekend of brilliant talks, intense debates, and playful socializing with some of the world’s top game designers and a group of your game design colleagues and peers.

Since we last updated you on PRACTICE, we have added more world-class speakers, the schedule has been opened up to add time for socializing, and we will host the opening reception and a special event at the Museum of the Moving Image.  View the full list of speakers and more information on the conference here.  On the site you’ll also find videos of select lectures from last year, as well examples of PRACTICE in the news.

Highlights from this year’s schedule include a lecture by the lead designer of the new Sim City, Stone Librande on the development of the game, a longer ‘Open Problems’ session, a popular event from last year where attendees bring in their own design problems for feedback form the entire room, and in keeping with PRACTICE’s penchant for expanding the notion of game design, David Ward, from the War Gaming Department at the United States Naval War College, will open the event on Sunday.  PRACTICE is a gathering of the most diverse and forward thinking game designers in the world and we want you to add your voice!

PRACTICE was created to address the community of working game designers, so this year we’re happy to offer a 10% discount to IGDA members!  Simply use the code ‘IGDA’ at the registration page to access the discount.

The heart of PRACTICE is the exchange of ideas among the attendees, and so we invite you to spread the word to friends and colleagues you think would like to be a part of this exchange!

If you have questions or comments about the conference, we’d be happy to hear from you at: gamecenter@nyu.edu

We hope to see you there!

Closer to total Curation/Censorship every Day

This image shows the dialog box that a user received when trying to install Molleindustria’s already-censored game Phone Story. Turns out this is a lauded “anti-malware” feature called Gatekeeper in OS X Mountain Lion.

Users can change the settings, but many people experience the misleading dialog above, not telling the user the truth – that they cannot install the program because they have to enable non-certified apps/developers in system settings. But rather telling the user that the file is “damaged”.

Paolo has a longer discussion of it here, but it does seem like that Apple has made it possible for the dialog to mislead in order to dissuade users from installing software not sold through the Mac App store and/or made by a licensed developer.

[Note: It is unclear whether this dialog is intentional. Some people claim that it is not the default dialog, but some developers experience it nonetheless.]

I wrote about this scenario some time ago as “Fear of an App Planet“: that our ability to easily and transparently develop and distribute games for PCs and Macs is gradually eroding. Worrying.

Only the Obvious can be Protected – on Games and Copyright

With the Tetris lawsuit of the way, the action has moved to EA’s lawsuit against Zynga for copying the Sims in Zynga’s The Ville.

Like the Tetris case, it comes down partly to the idea-expression dichotomy. (Better explained here.) You cannot protect the core idea of the game (semi-controlling little people), but you can protect the details of how it is expressed:  protection is afforded to the combination of character looks, menus, etc… all the small design decisions that express this idea.

Xio Interactive lost to the Tetris company because a sufficient number of small design decisions such as size of the playfield and color changes were similar to the original Tetris. The judge said:

“I find the following elements are also protected expression and further support a finding of infringement: the dimensions of the playing field, the display of “garbage” lines, the appearance of “ghost” or shadow pieces, the display of the next piece to fall, the change in color of the pieces when they lock with the accumulated pieces, and the appearance of squares automatically filling in the game board when the game is over. None of these elements are part of the idea (or the rules or the functionality) of Tetris, but rather are means of expressing those ideas.”

I am sympathetic to the principle that you cannot copyright a game idea.

On the other hand, this creates a counter-intuitive reversal in which the core innovative idea of a game is unprotectable, and only the trivial design decisions that follow are afforded protection. I think this makes some sense, but isn’t there something strange about it too?

In practice you see something similar in patents, such as in the Apple-Samsung case, where each patent is just a list of obvious or near-obvious concepts combined, with some vague specifics added (a database! a heuristic! a mobile device!), but where it’s the staggeringly banal specifics that actually make it patentable. Patents and copyright are obviously not the same thing, but there are some parallels here. Or this Google patent for face unlocking of devices, which has already been done a million types, except now it’s on a mobile device, with user switching!

Patent law is clearly broken, but I am not sure I would change copyright law.

It’s just that our intuition of what constitutes the “core of a game” puts emphasis on what we could call “the idea”, whereas copyright puts emphasis on what seems to be the shallow surface.