Online Social Environments (Beyond the MMO)

Usually, when I blog, it's to talk about how awesome (or slightly less so) games are; but sometimes, I like to go a little off the deep end and apply my knowledge about social constructs to the design and play of video games.  Today, I wanted to talk a little bit about online social environments and how they influence, impact, and have changed the way we game.

Gaming in social environments is not a new concept by a long shot.  Only recently did the scope of social environments involved in gaming expand exponentially.  An online social environment is a community (best defined by Pillari & Newsome as "[a social system] by the personal or affective ties among their members ... people with a common identity and bond").  This community's common identity is the game play.  And whereas many communities form in geographical locations, the space in which this community meets is virtual: the online social environment.

Before I lose you, here's a graphic representation of community (as we traditionally have understood it) and how an online social environment might be perceived.

Traditionally, communities are formed of cohesive groups of individuals - the community representing the focus of support for the individuals creating the group.  However, with online social environments, we are looking more at structures created (sometimes manufactured, sometimes grown organically) between individuals linked together through network connectivity (also known as the interwebz).

Okay, so what?  Well, the creation (especially the manufactured creation) of online social environments remains a major issue in online social gaming.  Everything from Facebook games to World of Warcraft create and utilize online social environments.  These are the foundations for which the game is designed, developed, and eventually, driven.  Where the theories of community development come into play are in considering how the environment and the individual interact.

There are two concepts of environment when considering systems theory.  I know I'm on the cusp of losing you again, so here's another drawing:

So, a symmetric environment (also sometimes called a symbiotic environment) influences the individual and the individual influences it.  Theoretical democracy is a symmetric environment.  An unbalanced, or directive environment is one which shapes the individual.  Online social environments can be applied to either category.  Consider a server community on Minecraft, for example.  This is a very symmetric environment - users create based on the materials available; the environment is shaped by users and provides the materials for construction (and also, Creepers). 



That'sss an awfully nice ssssocial environement you have there.
It'd be a ssssshame is ssssomething happened to it...

But not all games with online social environments work so nicely.  Let's take my arch-nemesis Farmville for a ride: users have little-to-no interactive ability with the environment, save for cosmetic changes.  There is little environment to speak of, because Farmville holds all the cards.  And rightfully so!  Relying on microtransactions would become difficult if you enabled community members to openly interact (especially on an economic basis). 

I don't want to go crazy into economics, but there is a huge problem between manufactured online social environments and profit motivation theory.  The notion to create a symmetric environment may be at diametric odds with the notion of creating a revenue generating environment.  So, in a capitalist based society, profit may beat out community development.

Because of this (I promise, the econ is almost done) profit problem, organically created online social environments tend to thrive more, because they are naturally uninhibited by those constraints that would generally plague a manufactured environment.

Of course, that sounds delicious to an investor.  Like wanting to capitalize on viral marketing, there is no magic bullet to ride the coattails of Web 2.0 to instant profit.  The motivation differences create a series of problems, lead to social entropy, and the decay (and eventual death) of the online social environment.

If you are an avid gamer, developer, or investor, I strongly recommend that you continue your investigation into online social environments - how we impact them, and them us.  Better understanding our mechanical interactive world can help make it better, not just for us, but for everyone else we share the community with; which, really, is what community is all about.

Donkey Kong Country Returns

You've got to feel bad for Donkey Kong.  The dude was originally cast as a barrel-chunking overlord of a world created of platforms, ladders, and sentient flame.  Later though, DK gained more independence as a go-kart racer, and had his own series of platform games on the SNES called Donkey Kong Country.

Simian miscreant, or domestic violence intervener?

Donkey Kong Country (and its two follow-up iterations) were never bad games, and in fact, represented a good deal of my childhood play-time on the SNES.  The graphics (courtesy of Rare) were crude in today's gameplace, but state of the art when the game was released.

The game focused on DK's loss of his banana stash, because he likes to eat bananas.  So, you know, there was a plot-ish.  Akin to "Save the princess."  In case you were to ask why, the game would glare at you and shout "Because I said so!" and hurtle you into a mini-game.

But games are more sophisticated now, like Donkey Kong Country Returns, which subjects you to some storyline where the volcano on Kong island is inhabited by bad mojo, and the chieftan of bad mojo steals all of your bananas.  Bad mojo chieftans, as we all know, are in constant need of a steady flow of potassium to continue their malicious operations on islands inhabited by Kong on his relatives.

Okay, so the game isn't going to win story of the year, or anything - but we didn't really expect it to.  I craved some 2D, beautifully rendered, platforming!  Donkey Kong Country, the Return of the Jedi was sure to please.  Nintendo practically wrote the book on what a 2D platformer needs to be successful.  But wait, what's this - to kill enemies, I must ... waggle?

Like a hooker clinging to the testicles of a customer who refused to pay for services rendered, Nintendo wants to force every single one of its game experiences to use the motion controls that made the Wii so famous.  Nevermind that when using the nunchuck accessory that I have like 12 buttons, only the joystick, A, and B buttons are used for moving, jumping, and grabbing respectively.  If you want to do your super-neat DK roll, you have to waggle the damn Wii-mote while pushing forward.  Didn't push forward correctly?  You'll ground-pound, or ... blow air?

If you have friends, you can play the game with them.
Then you won't have to worry about having friends anymore!

There are things to collect, which is kind of a fun part of Donkey Kong Country games, but the game play was severely wounded by the inclusion of needed waggling.  The platforming was a huge step back, as well, in my humble opinion.  There was very little strategy involved, and it just wasn't very fun to play.

Okay, it does look good.  I mean, this is exactly what I wanted in looks.  You know, Super Mario Galaxy 3, pretty much.

If you were looking for a game on the Wii that you could play as Donkey Kong for, you may as well just dust off Super Smash Bros. Brawl, which offers way more DK technique and a myriad of better control options.  Or, wait for the next go-kart, party, or olympic sporting game that Nintendo's over-used, tie-wearing mascot could be crammed into next.

Catherine: Again

Despite my post last week about not getting into Catherine, I found playing it again, out of some weird want for it to better.  What's the deal?  It's like a drug...

Nuka Break: Episode 3

This weeks' episode may not be the most exciting, but it sets up what promises to be more entertainment!

Catherine

I really want to like Catherine, Atlus' bizarre puzzle-platformer/horror/romance-sim game that was released stateside back in midsummer.  After an unimpressive demo back in July, I've recently given the full-game a shot, having borrowed it from my friend.  However, despite my interest in its bizarre gameplay, I simply cannot embrace the game.

Could it be its more-difficult-than-they-need-to-be Q-bert style block puzzles?

Could it be the hamby-pamby story of Vincent, the protagonist stuck between his overbearing girlfriend, Katherine, and his multiple-night-stand-may-not-be-a-real-person-since-she-doesn't-interact-with-any-other-characters Catherine?

Could it be the stumbly dialogue options via text message that you exchange with Catherine or Katherine?

Or is it simply the lack of gender role nuances that forces the thought that Vincent is afraid of commitment, like all men must be, and that the "right" path is to get over it and settle with your domineering (and possibly pregnant) girlfriend?

Whichever of these is the real culprit, I'll not be able to say.  Not simply because blaming just one seems too limiting, but because I can't bring myself to play the game again.

Bethesda bringing Scrolls Battle to Court

 

Despite Notch (aka Markus Persson, aka the creator of Minecraft, aka my lover) offering to settle the issue in a Quake 3 deathmatch, it seems that big, bad, corporate Bethesda is moving forward with its lawsuit against Mojang.  The charge?  Mojang's upcoming game is named Scrolls and Bethesda feels this might confuse consumers with the upcoming Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and the four other Elder Scrolls games that came before (particularly the IVth addition, Oblivion, which was Game of the Year).

I know I often confuse an independent studio's release with a GOTY-producing product line.

When first announced, it was like a bad joke, and Notch offered to resolve the problem out-of-court in what should become a precedent of all frivolous lawsuits: a Quake 3 Deathmatch!  Nevermind that Bethesda made Quake 3, this dude has the balls to go toe-to-toe.

If anything, this was Bethesda's opportunity to save face and build its fan base.  If they lost?  Ha-ha, you got to name your game Scrolls, even though we didn't really want you to, but we got tons of practically free publicity.  If they won?  Ha-ha, we get to keep our naming rights, and got tons of practically free publicity, but because we have this huge release coming out in November called Skyrim, so we're going to let you keep the naming rights, even though we won, as an act of goodwill towards all.

No, instead, it's to court they go. This will only leave a bad taste in the mouth of gamers, almost all of whom have some kind of soft-spot for the underdog Mojang, especially Notch and his hat fetish.  Opportunity of goodwill is slipping away, Bethesda - it's time to reach out and grab it.

On Scrolls, and scrolls.  Penny Arcade.

Finally, a thought: can you really hold a copyright or trademark on a word, like Scrolls?  If so, can God (or Moses, or whatever) sue Bethesda for ripping off the Dead Sea Scrolls?  I mean, there are dead things in Oblivion, and a sea, and - apparently - scrolls.

At Last!

It's only taken me forever (four playthroughs), but finally!

Platinum'd!

Nuka Break: Episode 2

There's not a ton of things going on that are absolutely awesome in my life.  Watching these is one of them.

A Tale of Two eReaders

As a boy, I would have told you that books weren't worth the paper they were printed on.  Reading books on the computer would have been my ideal scenario.  But as an adult, I've shied away from embracing this new technology, only recently completing a text via eReader.

Because of the iPad, I've been able to dip my toes in the world of reading via a mobile device, and have now read enough on two different platforms (iBooks and the Kindle iPad App) to judge them against each other.


Side by side comparison.  Kindle (left), and iBooks (right).



Neither is ideal, and both of them make me want to make an eReader that I would find ideal, but since I lack talent for anything other than complaining and criticizing, that is what I shall do!  So check out the criticism, after the jump...

Denton Square Donuts

This post is NSFD (not safe for diet).  Also, I am not attempting to occlude what is clearly SarahPlanet's domain in reviewing foodstuff.

This morning, Michael and I braved the Denton Car Show on the Square to try out Denton Square Donuts, a new store with a unique direction for the creation of breakfast pastries: to make them with edges.

My goal was simple: consume deliciousness.

Denton Square Donuts, Illy Coffee, Ancient Tablemats.

The Bacon Maple Donut, a well-cooked (nearly perfectly cooked) slice of bacon laid upon a maple glaze that affixed it to an eclair size puff pastry, was on both my husband and I's menus.  This featured item was not disappointing.  The bacon was nearly immaculately made, with the tiniest piece of chewy fat to remind you that hey: it's bacon.  The glaze was an excellent balance of sweetness to the savory of the bacon.  And the puff pastry held it together; an anchor of fluffy delight.

Perhaps I should have eaten the Bacon Maple Donut second, because the second pastry was hardly comparable.  The Apple Squared confection was exactly what you'd expect: apple preserves and some icing. Nothing memorable.

Hubby's second choice as the S'mores Donut, which promisingly was covered with marshmallows, chocolate chips, and golden grahams.  This had all the makings of wonder, but the icing concoction used to fasten these elements to the pastry was overwhelming.  Since he was unable to finish it, I took the last two bites and would really rather not have, honestly.  If only the stapler had been a little less toxic, I'm certain this would have come across rather well.

Our conclusion was that for the second or third week of Denton Square Donuts being open, it certainly is where a new business is: collecting a customer base, perfecting menu and processes.  At $2 a piece, I'd rather we just have gotten 4 Bacon Maple Donuts, based on this experience.  Truly, an $8 well spent.  Also, I was somewhat disappointed that the rogue in front of me in line claimed the final Apricot Brie, because that was what I'd like to have gotten.