We talked about a couple of games as part of this doc. One was Endgame:Syria…

…and the other was the newly released NarcoGuerra:

THE REJECTED: CENSORSHIP OF SOCIAL IMPACT GAMES
PARTICIPANTS: Ian Bogost, PHD, Alex Jansen, Clay Ewing, Tomas Rawlings
Games that tackle controversial issues have a giant chip on their shoulder: censorship. Whether a game is banned by a distributor or pulled by a sponsor, the effects can be chilling. This panel will discuss games that broached topics deemed unacceptable for consumption with a mixture of first hand accounts and perspectives on using games as means of persuasion.

I especially like the title ‘The Rejected‘ as it makes us all sound part of some cool western from the 1960s or a new-wave punk band.

But also – it’s NEW YORK! I’ve never been, but it’s one of those iconic places we know so well from our consumption of media…

Tomas Rawlings, Creative Director of Auroch Digital and the GameTheNews.net project, will be joining us to talk about his company’s recent dealings with Apple, who controversially rejected their real time strategy game, Endgame Syria, an unflinching interactive exploration of events unfolding in Syria today. The game and Apple’s refusal to publish it in the app store made global headlines, from the BBC to Wired, The Guardian to Russia Today, provoking a worldwide debate about the ethics involved in using games as a way to call attention to and talk about real world issues.

GameTheNews.net has to date released Endgame:Syria on PC, Mac and Android but not on the App Store due to Apple’s apparent restrictions on allowable content in games. Tomas will tell us what really happened, what GameTheNews.net did in response and what the issues are when large platform holders have the final say about what content goes on their media channels.

These kickass games let you do real-life science
Most of us would probably like to be citizen scientists, but we’re too busy — and yet we sink billions of hours into social gaming. So some savvy researchers are harnessing our love of gaming, to help advance the goals of science, using thousands of brains to sort through data. Here are eight games you can play… for science.

-
(Hat-tip to Codey for the link!)

Evolution is efficient to the point of stupidity. Incremental change is, by its nature, about the minimum effort in to get the maximum result. Thus it moves blindly along a path bit by bit unable to see that this route may lead to strange results because by the time the mistake is realised, the energy required to change what was once minor is now so major that it is simply not evolutionarily feasible to drive the alterations needed. The Giraffe laryngeal nerve is the classic example of this. In games we will see titles that appear to be successful and yet under the bonnet have major structural or design issues that are not apparent in the current environment, but a small shift in the play-space will result in exposure of these issues and so create major upheaval out of proportion to the environmental change.

So it was with great interest that I read Tadhg Kelly’s article on The Scientism Delusion. It’s an excellent article and well worth reading the whole thing. It shows another danger of the iterative approach – that by doing what others do, you just increase the competition you face as you all head for the same green pastures:

Formulaic thinking is incredibly common in the games industry. It comes largely from an engineering mindset, which is unsurprising given how closely developing games and software have always been linked. In software every application is essentially trying to solve a problem by providing features, and over time an application builds into a suite of features that users like. And sometimes the resulting applications become so over-complicated that a new developer reinvents them for simplicity, and the cycle begins again. It almost seems scientific.

…

What I’m talking about is understanding the difference between the act of creation and the process of creation. Of course you should be iterating. Of course you should be evaluating and playtesting and trying to figure out what will make your game fun. Of course you should be looking at the market and trying to find the right approach to get where you want to be. But the thing you should not be doing is following others’ successes to the letter on the cod-understanding that that constitutes a scientific approach. All it is is a fearful approach.

All creative industries exist in a tension of seeking the formula that works, as creativity is inherently risky, yet is doomed to fail in finding this formula, because creativity is inherently risky. See this example from theatre to see what I mean.

Video: Dawkins’s Biomorphs evolve to please us visually…

Values, whether community-specific or philosophical, can fit into an iterative design model so they’re continuously expressed both in the work and in the creation of it. They can appear in the reward structures, in the point of view, the narrative premise, player rewards and strategies, and in any other aspect including community of play and the context of the experience.

Truly listening to diverse players isn’t easy; “One of the things you need to do if you want to be an inclusive designer is have people play the game who aren’t like you,” she says. “Most people make games for themselves.”

“We know we can speak to certain audiences, but I’m really excited about how we can expand what we do,” Flanagan adds.

What does playful change look like? Investigating prejudice against vaccinations, Flanagan’s team made a game called Pox – as well as a zombie version — followed by a study that eventually brought a full-time social psychologist to the Tiltfactor team.

Studies of players of the games tested for systems thinking, players’ understanding about vaccination, and social perspectives on disease and ill people in particular. Groups that played the “zombie” version of the game had the best result, even though it was mechanically alike to the non-zombie version: “People’s sentiments on vaccinations changed even when faced with a ficticious disease, and people playing zombie Pox … had significant gains in systems thinking, and understood vaccinations the most.”

In other words, the zombie fiction was the only factor proven to enhance players’ interest in the game; audiences couldn’t relate to the danger of 50 year-old diseases, but understood the drama of popular zombie stories.

This is an important takeaway for designers wanting players to engage with information or experience empathy for others. “The further away a story is from one’s own lived reality, the more we can open up and identify with that person or that situation,” Flanagan says. “It seems counterintuitive, but the more outlandish the story is, the more open the player can be [to] actually absorb it.”

Tiltfactor’s Pox: The The People

Great pitch for the Royal Society game jam in may, and the Wellcome trust one down in Brighton. @TomasRawlings—
  (@catalystEd) April 25, 2013

For the Royal Society event  the deadline is only a few days away – get your application in!

Get £2K+ to Game Jam Cutting Edge Science into Fun: Royal Society invites game developers to bring research to life at Summer Science Exhibition

The Royal Society is looking for experienced games development studios to take part in a new initiative that will turn some of the research on show at its annual Summer Science Exhibition into video games. The Royal Society will host a 12 hour game jam on 24th May that will see developers work with the scientists behind exhibits to produce five exciting new games. Five development teams of up to 4 developers will be partnered with the selected exhibitors for an all-day game jam from 10am – 10pm. Each development team will receive £2,000 to further develop their games after the game jam so that they are ready to be played at the Summer Science Exhibition which runs from 1st – 7th July. The games will be available free online and at the exhibition itself so that the public can cast votes for their favourite game. The team that receives most votes will receive an additional £2,000 to further develop their game once the Exhibition closes.

This is a great opportunity to get your name known, make some amazing games and get paid too! Reasonable travel costs, food and refreshments will also be provided. Interested developers can find out more about the competition and how to apply from the Royal Society’s website at http://bit.ly/RSgamejam – Applications need to be in by the 1st May.

There is a list of the press coverage on this event over on Auroch’s site.