For the Greater Good or Big Brother?

Listening to the BBC on my morning commute the other day, I heard an interesting piece about Google’s efforts to track flu outbreaks through the frequency of specific flu-related searches (flu symptoms, achy muscles, sore throat, etc). Google claims that through this system, they can predict flu outbreaks by more than 7-10 days than traditional methods done by the CDC.

Something to Think About: Are people comfortable with Google’s efforts to publicize our searches? Even if it’s for the greater good?

I Wear a Smoking Jacket When I Game. And Post

Shown: cucumber sandwich. Not Shown: Algernon Moncrieff

Is there such a thing as a pretentious game? I’m sure all of us can name a pretentious film or novel or piece of music, but at the moment I’m coming up with blanks for games. Even Bioshock, a game famous for its Producer and story built around Objectivism, I wouldn’t consider it to be flaunting self-importance. I vaguely remember reading somewhere in a forum that applied the teleological suspension of the ethical to Shadow of the Colossus. Heck, even the name Kierkegaard conjures images of Victorians eating cucumber sandwiches while sitting cross-legged, complaining about the insensibility of the lower class and their meat sandwiches.

Perhaps it’s the interactive element that prevents pomposity in games from the outset - I think even without watching, say, American Beauty, you can tell by the poster or trailer that this movie is flowery. But what is it about this interactivity? Is it because games are designed for play, maximum funinosity? But then what about polo, where players ride horses and swings mallets? Knights these players are not. Fancy leg guards and silly hats with neck straps equals more tea, guvnor.

Perhaps it’s the subject matter and setting. The games that tend to emit self-importance usually trip and impale themselves on their gunswords. No, I didn’t forget the /. When a movie or book self-inflates, we usually roll our eyes or think nothing of it. If a game tries to do the same thing, we tend to be more lenient because, in the end, all we’re really doing is playing with toys; instead of actually holding the action figures, we’re using a 20-button controller or mouse and keyboard to bash the heroes and villains into each other. Actually, this could be a reason to doubly roll our eyes. “Good lord, this game drops as many philosophical ideas as I’m dropping space goblins.”

Or perhaps it has to do with the box covers - though not nearly as garish as comic book ones. Look at box descriptors and you’ll find gems like “impactful slow motion gun battles!” All the cucumber sandwiches in the world couldn’t stop a bullet point like that.

Something to think about: would pretentious games be such a bad thing to have?

The Perilous Adventures of Shampoo and Conditioner

While coming out of the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, I saw a billboard for Valve’s Left 4 Dead, a zombie apocalypse shooter, and ads for Bethesda’s Fallout 3 on the side of 3 buses. People probably think these are big-budget, high-profile games, which they are and in the latter game’s case, one of the voice actors is Liam Neeson.

Games have become an interactive Hollywood, and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing; bigger pushes for storytelling, bigger pushes for cinematic flair to go with high-production polish. And while I enjoy games taking the flashy elements of the movies, they should take the opportunity to borrow something else like manipulation and conditioning.

To an extent games already do these; players open treasure chests for loot yet also expect the occasional booby trap; players have learned to look before jumping over chasms because getting struck in midair usually results in falling into the darkness. These are universal. But what if game designers used these normative behaviors against the player? What if you the player were told to “come by after closing so I can give you your reward,” and when you return, you get robbed of all your possessions? What if you spotted a lone tower on the plains, and after fighting your way to the top, you find nothing of value?

The thing with most game conditioning is if players know they have to work hard for something, then they expect rewards. If we were to break this conditioning, introduce a new one that greatly increased consequence, then players will apply more thought into their decisions. “I could attack this fort, but what if I use up more resources than I replenish?”

Most games treat dilemmas like they treat their ethical binaries: both paths have different but equally valuable rewards.

Something to Think about: Conditioning doesn’t have to be isolated to gameplay. Like movies, think about how game designers could manipulate the players through the narrative.

Comparison Shopping for Barcode Apps

Shopping online is great for finding the cheapest price regardless of where the item is located. With Google’s G1 phone, the magic of Android lets you comparison shop anywhere. Using the phone’s camera function (but without taking a photo), you can scan a barcode of an item and comparison shop right there (ShopSavvy and CompareEverywhere are two apps reviewed here). No need to go to a bunch of sites and remember who has the best deal. Plus, you can store the deals you find into wish lists to act on later.

While there are iPhone apps that allow for the same scanning (like Snappr), the reviews have been spotty, citing imaging problems or a reliance on QR codes rather than the ever-present barcode. The whole process is super quick on the G1.

Something to Think About: While the G1 (or other Android devices) is not likely to oust the iPhone as the “it” mobile device, it is creating some healthy competition in the mobile app market.

Gun it, grandma

Take a look at the two game videos below. The one on top is from Rock Band 2 - specifically the song A Jagged Gorgeous Winter played on expert drums with a 100% hit rate. The bottom is from Ikaruga, a shmup where you change the polarity of your ship between black and white while you absorb enemy shots of similar color. Both games are chaotic, display different kinds of hells (one of bullets and the other of notes and chords). These games do not recognize grazes; you have to be precise with your hits and misses.

Yet only Rock Band has had any impact on our culture, and it’s not difficult to see why. The majority of the game’s concept can be understood through the title alone. But what is an Ikaruga? Is it a verb? A type of sushi roll? Look at the game description in the previous paragraph. That’s the first barrier to entry. Setting is the other. Music has a much broader appeal than controlling a spaceship that has to weave through curtains and curtains of fire. Put people in a game setting that makes sense and they will most likely become repeat customers.

But is it fair of me to compare these two games even though they are not of the same genre? Is this just an exercise in being reductive? I guess my point is not about what makes a game a cultural impact but how the chaos and acceleration components of a so-called hardcore game can be instilled in one that has mainstream appeal.