Casual Game – Interactive Digital Narratives

Referential Humor and Immersion in Britney’s Gameworld

As I discussed in my previous post, the gameplay in Britney Spears American Dream merges real and game world, leaving users in almost a constant state of play. American Dream is not concerned with creating a unique and separate space in the game that is separate from the real world. Rather, it plays on and borrows jokes and…

As I discussed in my previous post, the gameplay in Britney Spears American Dream merges real and game world, leaving users in almost a constant state of play. American Dream is not concerned with creating a unique and separate space in the game that is separate from the real world. Rather, it plays on and borrows jokes and ideas from the real world.

Britney at “Starbeans Coffee” making a joke about how the baristas never get anyone’s name, employing a real joke about Starbucks made all over the internet.

Some of these references are more heavy handed than others.

The player’s manager calling about a gig at “The Paperclip Center” in the game world’s Los Angeles

Player invited as backup singer for the comedy TV show “Friday Night Laughs.” Referred to later in the game as “FNL”

I think some of these references are useful in conveying to the player the importance behind the gigs they’re landing. For example, I know that the Paperclip Center in the game is meant to be the Staples Center, and therefore I know that landing a performance there is a pretty big deal.

Additionally, these reference are funny (at least, they made me laugh.) The not so subtle play on worlds they all use and their familiarity to almost any player can probably muster a laugh in most users.

In my game experience, these jokes and references have consistently pulled me out of the game world. While they may make me smile, I think of the actual thing the game is referring to rather than the object in the game itself. I may also recall another time where I saw the same joke on the internet somewhere. Either way, these techniques take away from the immersive quality of the game. The game world in American Dream is not unbrokenly presented. These references function the same as a loading screen or a game error, they remind me of the real world and its power over the game world. (An unbroken presentation of the game world is one of Jane Madigan’s criteria for an immersive game: http://www.psychologyofgames.com/2010/07/the-psychology-of-immersion-in-video-games/)

The level of immersion is often the number one criteria by which people (including myself) determine the quality of video games. This is not always a fair judgement, perhaps especially in a game like American Dream. It’s a casual game through and through, and its mechanics do a great job of making it so. It’s possible Glu Mobile aimed to maintain a certain low level of immersion in order to preserve the integrity of a casual game. American Dream is not meant to be played nonstop, its mechanics make it nearly impossible to play for even 30 straight minutes. The game is meant to be picked up multiple times in a day for a quick play, and it’s lack of immersion ensures this.

Immersion in a Casual Game: The Room Two

For the most part, casual games distract players from everyday life. They provide a break for someone: a little fun on a bathroom or coffee break. However, The Room Two is the first casual game that I have played which requires intense focus and attention rather than mindless swiping on a 4 inch screen. After finishing … Continue reading “Immersion in a Casual Game: The Room Two”

For the most part, casual games distract players from everyday life. They provide a break for someone: a little fun on a bathroom or coffee break. However, The Room Two is the first casual game that I have played which requires intense focus and attention rather than mindless swiping on a 4 inch screen.

unknown

After finishing playing The Last of Us, I assumed that my casual game would require a different type of analysis when thinking about how the game functioned. While The Room 2 is a puzzle game that does not need a large screen or a captivating narrative, it does employ many functions that more immersive console games tend to employ. For instance, there is eerie music throughout gameplay, adding an element of suspense, as well as a character known as A.S..

Without this music, the game would function as a stereotypical puzzle game. The music, however, adds a narrative element that puzzle games do not normally have. Where is the music coming from? Is it part of the mise-en scene, as in is it actually playing in the various rooms, or is it something the developer added to increase the overall attractiveness of the game?

The Room also has text built into the game. These letters both provide clues and add narrative to the game. T chapter-1-intro-letter he author, only known as A.S., speaks to the player through these letters,
but there are also unsigned texts, which offer instructions to the player on how to
move through the levels. These texts implicate A.S. as the in-game auteur. A.S. leaves riddles to help and confuse the player, granting him narrative power. These riddle texts work in conjunction with the clues you can use, which come from the developers of the game, rather than A.S., the in-game auteur.

As I continue to play this game, I want to further explore A.S’s role in the game. Is he essential to the game play, adding components that enhance the game’s intrigue? Or is he merely fluff, who distracts from the puzzles the developers have created? Does a character within a puzzle game benefit or inhibit game play?

Where Does the Magic Circle End in Britney Spears American Dream?

Earlier this year Britney Spears released her namesake videogame with Glu Mobile- the same developers of the wildly successful Kim Kardashian Hollywood. Britney Spears American Dream is the ultimate casual game: a free app available on the app store and Google play. In the game the player’s goal is to become an A-list pop star. The…

Earlier this year Britney Spears released her namesake videogame with Glu Mobile- the same developers of the wildly successful Kim Kardashian Hollywood. Britney Spears American Dream is the ultimate casual game: a free app available on the app store and Google play. In the game the player’s goal is to become an A-list pop star. The player completes tasks (dates, meetings, recordings, photo-shoots, etc.) to climb their way through the industry. In order to complete these tasks the player must use up units of energy, which replenish every few minutes in real time (a brilliant mechanic that keeps players constantly returning to the game multiple times per day.)

The game makers have employed other arguably brilliant techniques to earn money off of the game and reach out to new users. Players can buy energy, in game money and other rewards with real dollars. Players also earn in game prizes by sharing and promoting the game and the songs they’ve created in the game with others via social media. Linking the in game account with Twitter or Facebook accounts and sharing posts about the game gives players in game rewards and advances their rankings. Players’ real life friends can access and up-vote the songs created in game, boosting their ranking on the in-game charts. By reaching certain levels players can also unlock content relating to Britney Spears’ real life music and career.

Special promotion offered for reaching level 6: players get sneak peek of Spears’ upcoming music video

A similar game mechanic is used in Kim Kardashian: Hollywood, where developers will make clothing items and events that occurred/ existed in real life unlockable in the game. Glu Mobile also released games with Nicki Minaj, Gordon Ramsey, Kendall and Kylie Jenner, and Katy Perry, all with very similar gameplay and merging of game and real world.

This style of game blends the game world with the real world, almost requiring players to participate in both at the same time. Just by having a main character that is a real person (Britney herself) American Dream is trying to entangle itself with the real world. So, if a player of American Dream sends out tweets and statuses about their gameplay, does the magic circle really end once they quit the game app? Their posts on social media continue to exist for the purpose of drawing likes and in game advancement, leaving them in a constant state of play.

Lumosity is a lie

In my previous blog post, I spoke to how the design of Lumosity’s game and interface was heavily influenced by the “projected identity” of the player. This is not to evaluate the effectiveness of these brain games, but highlights the dynamic a desire to become intelligent and trust in technology to satisfy this goal. Lumosity’s […]

Lumosity’s marketing targeted consumers who felt a need to become smarter. The “real world” identity of its consumers included people with serious medical conditions, older adults who were experiencing age-related cognitive decline, and students. The “virtual identity” was a concrete profile that Lumosity provided with age comparisons, self-evaluations, and etc. The “projected identity” of these targeted consumers drove Lumosity’s marketing, but was never backed up by scientific research. According to Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, “Lumosity preyed on consumers’ fears about age-related cognitive decline, suggesting their games could stave off memory loss, dementia, and even Alzheimer’s disease.” Lumosity not only used the “projected identity” as their key marketing aspect, but highlighted how the games were co-designed by game designers and scientists. This raises some key issues about the human behavior: what makes science and research so ‘promising’ without question? What makes a piece of technology a qualified evaluation tool? Maybe their clients got tired of “traditional” ways of training their cognitive abilities, and found the appealing brain games more trustworthy.
When I reflect on my experience with the game, I have to ask: Do I believe that they made me smarter? I had fun, which is why it’s a casual game according to Juul’s definitions. As an educator, I did not find the games effective because the content is not situated, and therefore not translatable. The game designers focused so much on the procedural style of learning skills that they failed to create content that was contextualized in real-world experiences and isolated these skills to their steps and not their application. My “projected identity” is being developed in other ways, and without the need to rely on brain games that tell me I’m smart.

References:

Lumosity to Pay $2 Million to Settle FTC Deceptive Advertising Charges for Its “Brain Training” Program

Mind the gap: What Lumosity promised vs. what it could prove

“Brain training” with Lumosity — does it really work?

Problems of Identity in brain games

During the initial tutorial stage in which Lumosity accustoms you to the interface and gameplay, the game uses statistical data to compare you against other players in your age range. Your performance is represented on a bell curve. When you performed poorly, the game’s text remains “juicy” by directly rewarding your intent and ignoring the game score. When I see that I have performed better than the majority, it was an ego boost and bar that was raised for myself. On the other hand, when I performed under the average, I was determined to better myself and more importantly, beat them. Once the tutorial is over, the game no longer compares you to other players, but instead measures your high scores and encourages you to be better than your ‘previous’ self. The design is meant to invoke competitive game play, and creates a difference experience when the competitor is oneself. This type of priming is intentional, and feeds into what James Paul Gee defines as the “projected identity.” This identity bridges the “real-world” identity with the “virtual” identity. According to James Paul Gee, the projective identity is to:

“project one’s values and desires onto the virtual character and seeing the virtual character as one’s own project in the making, a creature whom I imbue with a certain trajectory through time defined by my aspirations for what I want that character to be and become.” (page 55)

Lumosity continues to feed and prime my “projected identity” through a variety of ways. The juiciness is always encouraging of any progress that is made. When I don’t perform as well as I hope to, it never communicates that negatively. The explanations of games and their purpose prime me into believing that the game will help me develop a certain skill. Lumosity has the illusion of unmasking the ‘black box’, although I, as a player, have no idea how tapping on train tracks or swiping on the screen makes me a better multitasker.

In my third blog post, I will discuss more in depth the effectiveness of these brain games and the role of the “projected identity” in Lumosity’s marketing and design.

References:

Gee, James Paul. 2003. What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

When casual games become ‘fruitful’

Lumosity is marketed as a game that was co-designed by game designers and scientists to improve the player’s cognitive functions. This simple wording already forms the basis of their conditioning, but it definitely works. The app has a mini-game that opens explaining what cognitive function it strengthens. The games are ‘scientifically’ broken down into five […]

Lumosity is marketed as a game that was co-designed by game designers and scientists to improve the player’s cognitive functions. This simple wording already forms the basis of their conditioning, but it definitely works.

The app has a mini-game that opens explaining what cognitive function it strengthens. The games are ‘scientifically’ broken down into five different modes: velocity, flexibility, resolution of clues, attention, and memory. I play each game with these goals in mind (sometimes not always understanding exactly how the mini-game is designed for these goals). The game mechanics are simple, which usually require just a touch to the screen. Because the game rules themselves are sometimes difficult to grasp the first time, Lumosity does a great job at scaffolding with short, easy tutorials. When I get combos or correct answers, the sounds are pleasant. When I mess up, the game makes an unpleasant, yet gentle sound and sometimes allows the player to correct their error. Failure is just as accepted as it is in Lumosity as it is in any other game. The game is so ‘juicy’ with encouraging text after each game, lots of in- and out-of-game compliments, no matter how well or bad I performed.

As a response to the exclusivity of hardcore games, Jesper Juul has defined casual games as a game for all ages that have the following five characteristics: fiction, usability, interruptibility, difficulty, and ‘juiciness.’ In the table below, I will judge Lumosity according to Juul’s characteristics for a casual game.

Doesn’t he just look so much smarter?

References:

Jesper Juul, A Casual Revolution, chapter 2

Notions of Love in Dating Sims

While most of Joel Gn’s article, “Cute Technics in the Love Machine,” gets spent talking about the “cute” elements of dating sims (ones designed for male players), he argues that despite controversy, dating sims reinforce standard beliefs about relationships and love. Mystic Messenger, like other dating sims, also reinforce these ideas, but not in the…

While most of Joel Gn’s article, “Cute Technics in the Love Machine,” gets spent talking about the “cute” elements of dating sims (ones designed for male players), he argues that despite controversy, dating sims reinforce standard beliefs about relationships and love. Mystic Messenger, like other dating sims, also reinforce these ideas, but not in the same way Gn believes.

Gn claims that “the dating sim does not alter, but repeats and even formalizes the interactivity of love with a software construct.” Essentially, because the player’s only have certain options they can respond with, they must progress on one of the game’s paths. These paths follow general set patterns about love. For example, in MM, when romancing Zen, the player starts by talking with him frequently for several days, then they meet up with him and go on a date of sorts. Afterwards they continue to talk and plan to visit each other again. This follows the course of a regular relationships, where people talk, go on dates, and get closer over time. If the player wants a romance with Zen, they must pursue it in this way, reinforcing standard beliefs about relationships.

On the player’s “date” with Zen they look at the stars together and then the player goes home. That is the only option, thus reinforcing standard notions of romance

Gn also argues that this is a positive aspect of the games, for they play out love like real life by following the “correct” pattern to get the result you desire. Since they’re meant to simulate dating though, the problem with entering the correct algorithm is that it doesn’t necessarily follow the player’s own thoughts. In MM, a player usually has two or three option choices for dialogue. One will generally lead to a negative reaction or no reaction, while the other will lead to a positive one. As a result, the player chooses the answer which will earn a positive reaction with the character they aim to romance, not necessarily the answer they would actually say. The game then becomes more of a role-playing scenario than an actual “simulation,” because often the responses don’t align with the player’s thoughts. While the game does repeat the generally accepted values and patterns of love, it’s not making the player go through them, but instead has the player “play” a person going through them. So while the games do reinforce societal values about love and relationships, those get transferred via roleplaying rather than actual feelings.

Even if a person would normally respond with a simple good-bye, if they want approval they must respond with the top option, making the dating sim more of a role-playing game than a simulation

Sources:
Gn, Joel. “Cute Technics in the Love Machine.” InVisible Culture no. 21 (Fall, 2014). http://ezproxy.lib.davidson.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1771515685?accountid=10427.

Is Mystic Messenger Casual?

From my last post, we know that Mystic Messenger involves an almost constant attention for at least 11 days (the time it takes for a single playthrough), because of its real-time mechanics, which would make it appear as more of a hardcore game than a casual one. However, following the criteria Jesper Jull describes in…

From my last post, we know that Mystic Messenger involves an almost constant attention for at least 11 days (the time it takes for a single playthrough), because of its real-time mechanics, which would make it appear as more of a hardcore game than a casual one. However, following the criteria Jesper Jull describes in his article, “A Casual Revolution,” MM still counts as a casual game.

Casual games have positive valence, or have associations with happy or fun vibes. Dating sims involve romance, which have associations with love, happiness, and comfort. Although certain choices can lead to negative outcomes (or bad ends), overall MM has a positive frame work.

The romance options allow the player to choose which personality works best for them, and makes them happiest.

Casual games are easy to use, either building off conventions from outside the game or using simple mechanics that can be easily taught. MM falls into the first category, as the mechanics involve: text-messaging, email, phone calls, and a chatroom. This applies for the first 5 days, which is when the “visual novelization” mode gets added, complicating things as this doesn’t have a real-life counterpart, but even then, the other, more familiar forms still dominate.

Casual games are easily interrupted, allowing players to play for short bursts. Despite the real-time attention needed for MM, it can still be interrupted. The chatrooms and phone calls feature a pause button, allowing players to take a break. They also only take a few minutes to play, and then have hour breaks in between.

Casual games are difficult to master, but feature little punishment for failure. This is the hardest category to measure in a dating sim. Mastery would involve a complete understanding of every romance route, and both the multiple good and bad endings. In that sense, yes the game is difficult to master, but that comes from how long it takes to go through entirely, not that the game gets more difficult as you play; the types of responses you can give vary little as you progress. Also, failure can be a reward as it unlocks the “bad” ending, which many players purposely seek out.

Casual games are juicy. This works for MM because anytime the player responds with the “correct” response, a heart with pop up on the screen, and the player will receive it as a reward at the end of the chat. The game lets the players know when they’re doing the “right” thing.

The heart appears when a character approves of your comment, which is the game’s juiciness.

So, despite its real-time mechanics that make players constantly check it, Mystic Messenger still fits snugly into Jesper’s definition of a casual game.

Mystic Messenger: Gaming In Real-Time

While Cheritz’s most recent game, Mystic Messenger, looks like pretty much dating sim you’d download on Android, it quickly turns the tables with a relatively simple game mechanic. Most dating sims operate on a “turn” system; you get so many turns, each of which progresses the story, and when you run out, you have to…

While Cheritz’s most recent game, Mystic Messenger, looks like pretty much dating sim you’d download on Android, it quickly turns the tables with a relatively simple game mechanic. Most dating sims operate on a “turn” system; you get so many turns, each of which progresses the story, and when you run out, you have to wait until the next day to get more turns (unless you pay for them, which is how the games make money). Unlike other dating sims, MM occurs in real-time. After you start the game, chats open up as time progresses, to the extent that if you don’t start the game at midnight, there’s no way to complete everything to 100%. Here’s the kicker though, if you don’t respond to a chat by the time another chat starts (the time of which varies), you miss out on participating. (Unless you buy it separately, which is how this game makes its money).

The real time method of the game, which takes place over 11 days

So why would MM deviate from tradition ways of framing dating sims? Simply put, it keeps players playing their game. In a tradition dating sim, you play for a day and when you’re out of turns, you quit. Maybe you come back the next day, but there’s no guarantee that you do. The story cannot progress without you, so it’s not a problem. In MM though, the story will go on. The characters will chat with each other, even if you aren’t present. There isn’t any taking a break for a few days, because a few days could cost you the entire game. Even missing a conversation could ruin your attempts to romance whichever character you choose. As a result, the game encourages a sort of “drop-everything” type of play. This keeps players engaged with the game. It’s aided by the fact that each new message received sends a notification to your phone, which leads to a constant checking of the device or the game to ensure that you aren’t missing anything.

Given that the game takes place over the course of 11 days, if the player wants to play through every romance (just good endings) that guarantees at least 55 days of consistent playing, which is probably more than many AAA games out there. Essentially, real-time serves as function to both keep players playing, or alternatively for less avid players, to get them to pay money in order to complete the game.

The hour glasses next to the chat mean you missed them, but can purchase them for money