Go to Content
Columbia College Chicago
IAM Blog Engine
Print this Page Email this Page

IAM Blog Engine

Blogging resource for the Interactive Arts and Media department @ Columbia College Chicago

Archive for the 'Technological Advances' Category

Valve and Transparent DRM

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

Valve’s new DRM / Piriting circumvention strategy is very interesting…

I am rather skeptical about the whole War On Digital Rights Management and the companies who are involved in appeasing the masses. While they seem to be freeing the gaming world of its DRM driven shackles, they are only imposing a more transparent (and sometimes more restrictive) form of DRM. Some people don’t mind, some people do.

What’s interesting about this is that certain companies can get away with masking their DRM techniques into something more friendly and transparent. This company in particular is Valve. Their Steam platform is their premiere downloadable content distribution system, and they have managed to win the hearts of a large PC gaming market with minimal uproar.

For a while, I’ve wondered if Valve was ever going to fix the ease of copying and pasting certain third-party games from the Steam folder. Apparently, they’ve taken note of this and decided to create unique executables to help circumvent the pirating problem. I wonder if anyone’s going to complain about this…

Security in Online Games

Sunday, February 8th, 2009

Here is the Slashdot posting:  Major Spike in Security Threats To Online Games

I swear, if it weren’t for Slashdot, I would have never found out about this. The main article (which is hosted on Gamasutra) deals with a very simple analysis on why criminals “hackers” are beginning to strike the online gaming community. Some of the reasons given include:

1) The Online Gaming industry being a moneypot. Massively Multiplayer Online Games are popular. Too popular.

2) The fact that some people out there are actually willing to pay more than five dollars for someones *insert online game here* character with what is considered to be “epic” gear.

3) Criminals are criminals, and they’re just moving on to the next logical thing.

4) People are susceptible to manipulation. (Social engineering is a wonderful thing.)

I personally feel as if this was inevitable, and I honestly seen this coming a mile away. Anything and everything can be compromised, and people don’t often think about their online avatars being one of those things. I am even guilty of feeling as if nobody would even bother hacking my accounts (be it for Steam, City of Villains, or otherwise). Even though I say that my virtual personas have absolutely no value to them at all, apparently gold farmers and account thieves think otherwise.

What are developers doing about this, though? Warning users of the dangers of account compromise and not buying gold apparently isn’t the only thing they should do. Maybe they should also take Blizzard’s lead.

As mentioned in the article:

“There are also some possible technical aides. For example, Blizzard has introduced the World Of Warcraft authenticator RSA key generator. This is a physical token device that allows you to augment account security by entering a specially generated password created by the device every time you log in.”

You can buy this key generator for a measley $6.50. I honestly believe that things like this should be free, and should be an expectation met by the company that just so happens to throw around millions of player’s personal information within their accounts. But then again, at least it isn’t as bad as charging money for in-game goodies that are only available for a short amount of time.

Right?

But at the end of the day, I think it comes down to (yet again) the user’s ability (or lack thereof) to avoid situations where social engineering could get the best of them. Being mindful of what information you give to whom, what passwords you create, and who shares your accounts could save almost anyone a serious amount of grief and trouble when it comes to avoiding account hacking.

Per Usual: Zero Punctiation

Sunday, February 8th, 2009

As usual, Yatzee, everyone’s favorite asshole Australian, brings ups a very good point in this week’s review. In his review of Little Big Planet, he raise the issue of the validity of user created content in game play experience, LBP being a user created content focused experience. His argument pretty much states that he’d rather play levels created by professional developers than by amateur bastards whose natural inclination is to build homages to the World 1-1 of Super Mario Brothers and just plain old shit. He acknowledges that user created content can make good things, but most of what it spawns is shit.

“If a game that stands up by itself wants to release level design and modding tools, than Brillo Bananas: good modding communities are the sprinkling of cinnamon on a delicious trifle and hence relying on user made content is like eating heaped spoonfuls of cinnamon right from the jar. I don’t want to have to wade through waste-high rendering runoff to get to the good levels, especially when I can do that by just playing the story mode: you know, the levels designed by professional fucking level designers. If I buy a house, I want an architect to design it. If I design it myself, it may have a more personal touch, but it’s going to fall over very fast and even if it doesn’t the giant fiberglass breasts on the front will be very tacky and the neighbors will complain when the gingerbread garage starts to smell.”

Ben “Yahtzee” Croshaw, Zero Punctuation: Little Big Planet

Well, I’ve yet to play LBP myself, (I own it, but for some reason I have a bit diffculty of seeing my PS3 any other than a Bluray player), but going with experience of how User Created bases work on the consoles, I can’t help but see his point. User created content is usually a PC thing, and works because PC games are built to be generative systems. Mods are easy to find, and the community usually sorts which ones are good and which ones are bad. Console gaming, as much as I love it, is very much non-Generative. The system is pretty much locked out, and the only pipe which content can come down is a strictly official system. In attempts to put generativity in a non-generative base often show: Halo 3 Forge mode has the capability to create, but that ability is limited by what Bungie allows a player to do (which, unfortunately, excludes geometry), the system of how content is shared, and the games matchmaking system which doesn’t allow players to host their own public room, allowing the specially made maps to only be played in private matches between friends. And, again, a lot of the content that gamers create is just shit. Some of the maps I’ve played have been good, but equally they’ve been designed with the creator in mind, often giving that player an unfair advantage. A Hidden and overpowered hornet has been the feature of one acquaintance’s map variants, often making custom games with him a question of “Guys, find where that Hornet spawns yet?” I’m just saying that an attempt at generativity on console seems kinda foolish, especially when the focus is a game completely focused on it.

Feminism and Games -OR- “Lighten up, will ya?”

Sunday, September 21st, 2008

Bam.  And Bam.

WARNING, this entry uses come colorful language, in reference to the game in question only.

So there’s this game called “Cunt,” where the objective is to pilot a disembodied member around the game space, shooting various bodily fluids at a horrific portrayal of female genetalia.  To put it simply.  I played it, I enjoyed it.  Here’s the meat:  The feminist articles that reported on the game had a few points, but at their weakest they digress into generalizations about an entire gender, and go so far as to imply hidden meaning where there, at the direct addmitance of the author, is none.  This, my friend, is ridiculous.

I looked at the game “Cunt” as objectively as I possibly could at first, then broke it down for myself.  The game has some crazy, nasty imagery that honestly made me giggle.  It was childish and simple.  A nasty looking vagina with several forms of VD, and eyes, sends out various disease/parasite related enemies to try and destroy a tenacious little fella.  I laughed, an honest chuckle at the game play.  I then looked at the subtext.  Male fighting female, destroying each other with disease and fluids.  It’s some really Freudian stuff.  I dove a little deeper and read the quote from the author who says he just thought genitals were funny, and wanted to create a game about that.  I took his word for it.  I want to make a game about killin’ ninjas, plain and simple.  Sometimes the motivations are nice and easy.  But not nice and easy enough for a type 2 feminist, it seems.

I was informed of the existance of Type 2 feminists by a feminist friend of mine.  They are the man-haters of the lot, apparently.  I’m a Type 1 masculinist most of the time, so I listened good to her description. The articles written…I have no real connection to the issues the authors are drawing from.  I read the articles but they began to dissolve into “But he didn’t REALLY mean that…he is REALLY a woman hating man,” and suddenly I was upset.  I felt as though any response to “Why this game?” would result in a psychological dissertation from the feminist movement.  Sometimes things are really just as simple as they seem.

I’m not sure where this is going really.  My bottom line is this:  Games with controversial/sexual/violent images CAN have subtext intended, but the world needs to prepare for the possibility of there NOT being a subtext as well.  And if interpreted, that subtext may or may not mean anything about the author of that game whatsoever.

There.

PS: Satire. (NSFW)

Will all games become irrelevant?

Friday, April 11th, 2008

Chad Sapieha writes, on Controller Freak:

But what if Super Mario Bros. had been released today rather than 1985? Would it still have become the phenomenon that it was 23 years ago? I don’t think so…. Evaluated based on the expectations we have of games today it still does fairly well—it provides a welcome sense of discovery and requires no small amount of skill. But, released in 2008, it would be deemed too small in scope, basic in control, and simple in narrative to be declared a truly great game.

The reason why games don’t—and, perhaps, may never—have the same sort of agelessness as other forms of artistic entertainment is that they aren’t judged (at least not primarily) on anything as enduring as characters, plot, or writing. Rather, they are evaluated based on elements that are constantly evolving within the medium, such as game design, play mechanics, and, to a lesser degree, graphics. (link)

As several commenters point out (and I was prepared to comment until I saw those entries), it’s an unfair comparison to make because video games are still a pretty new art form.  Just as we wouldn’t evaluate a 1915 top-grossing movie on the standards of The Godfather (1972), we shouldn’t evaluate SMB on today’s merits.  (Though I would suggest, based on time, that games are currently equivalent to the 1930s in film history, and thus just coming into their own.)

What do you think?  Are games doomed to irrelevance?  More importantly, do you see the art of gaming slowing down, innovation-wise?  Is it becoming harder to innovate as you make games?  Why?

MERGER Activision Blizzard VS Electronic Arts

Monday, December 3rd, 2007

MERGER Activision Blizzard VS Electronic Arts
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16458

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16457

This Sunday a merger was announced between two industry giants. Vivendi Universal, and Activision. Most of the details have yet to be hammered out but several key things are:

“Following the completion of the transaction, Robert Kotick will be President and Chief Executive Officer of Activision Blizzard. Bruce Hack, current Chief Executive Officer of Vivendi Games, will serve as Vice-Chairman and Chief Corporate Officer of Activision Blizzard, accountable for leading the merger integration and the finance, human resources and legal functions.

Mike Griffith will serve as President and Chief Executive Officer of Activision Publishing, which after closing will include the Sierra Entertainment, Sierra Online and Vivendi Games Mobile divisions in addition to the Activision business.

Mike Morhaime will continue to serve as President and Chief Executive Officer of Blizzard Entertainment. Thomas Tippl, currently Chief Financial Officer of Activision, will be appointed Chief Financial Officer of Activision Blizzard and Jean-François Grollemund, currently Chief Financial Officer of Vivendi Games, will be appointed Chief Accounting Officer of Activision Blizzard.”

*Vivendi will remain the majority in shareholdings (largest percentage of ownership of the two companies)

*Activision will likely remain a separate, independent division of Vivendi in much the same way as Blizzard Entertainment.

The reason for the merger, partly to better compete against EA, especially in the ever-growing online games, (including MMOs’ ) market. EA, like Vivendi has many divisions including popular BioWare/Pandemic, Mythic/Warhammer Online. Needless to say, it will be a struggle to compete with this new combined force.

Another significant reason for the merger is to be the immediate dominate force in the market, and more importantly begin to spread and develop an Asian market. They also note the many benefits in the future development of new games by the influx of experienced developers and industry professionals. Guitar Hero stands at the forefront of this as it benefits from a new relationship Universal Music Group (world’s largest music company.)

The bottom-line is that this new merger will spur a new a growth of ideas, development and possibilities to both companies. Regardless of whether you love/hate or are neutral about the deal you must respect the decision. It has the potential to powerfully influence the entertainment industry for years to come.

Mike Morhaime, President and Chief Executive Officer of Blizzard summed this up best. “From our interactions with the Activision team, it is clear we have much in common in terms of our approaches to game development and publishing. Above all, we are looking forward to continue creating great games for Blizzard gamers around the world, and we believe this new partnership will help us to do that even better than before.”

Rhizome at the New Museum – financial support for emerging artists for the creation of original works of Internet-based art.

Tuesday, November 13th, 2007

Rhizome Commissions Program

Founded in 2001, the Rhizome Commissions Program makes financial support available to emerging artists for the creation of original works of Internet-based art. Commissions are awarded annually by jury and by Rhizome’s membership through an open member vote.

Rhizome considers emerging artists to be those whose work and previous accomplishments demonstrate significant potential and yet are under-recognized in the broader art field. The Commissions program is designed to support these artists with an award and also through the promotion, exhibition and preservation of their work. All commissioned works are exhibited on Rhizome.org and at the New Museum of Contemporary Art, as well as preserved in the ArtBase.

Our next deadline for applications is April 1, 2008. We will begin accepting applications in February 2008. Please check here for more information. http://www.rhizome.org/commissions/

Would you like to play Global Thermonuclear War?

Monday, November 5th, 2007

Defcon ScreenshotChaos rules. It is simply madness. The countless billions of dollars invested in defense are proving woefully inadequate. Enemy fighters penetrate deep into our airspace even as ground to air missile batteries erupted with fire. The huge carriers with their escorts are fighting brutally against an enemy that seemingly has no remorse. With no other choice silos both on land and below the sea open and launch nuclear payloads. DEFCON is a strategy game that is unlike anything currently on the market. While many games have elements of nuclear war few actually seek to emulate it. In DEFCON, that is exactly what the player does – leads a country or region through thermonuclear war. The unique combination of subject, graphics and symbols, makes DEFCON a highly controversial game that seems to trivialize humanity by underplaying the consequences, showing contempt for life, and ultimately stylizing warfare into anything but a serious matter.

To begin to understand DEFCON you must understand the history behind it and how it ultimately translates into the game. During the Cold War two major powers reign supreme, the United States and the Soviet Union. Both countries and their allies built up huge military stockpiles of all sorts, including massive arsenals of nuclear weapons. The United States devised a numerical system based from five (5) to one (1) to quickly explain the military readiness of all its forces. Referred to as ‘Defense Condition’ this was abbreviated to ‘Defcon’, thus becoming the title of the game. At defense condition five or Defcon 5, all forces are at normal operations. Progressively decreasing from five is a higher state of readiness when at one, nuclear weapons are deployed. In game this is represented by being able to do more with your units as the defcon level decreases. At five the player is only able to deploy units and bases, four your radar activates to detect enemy unit movements, three units engage each other, until you hit one and nuclear weapons are launched and all your strategies begin to either succeed brilliantly or crumble in ruins before your eyes. The objective being simple in that you hopefully avoid getting nuked.

When you play the game the first look is the game map. To those who have seen the movie Wargames it will look eerily familiar. It should, because DEFCON was based largely upon that movie. It is from the world stage map that you will command the various elements – planes, subs, carriers, and missiles. This isn’t Command and Conquer so you will not be seeing individual tanks, or soldiers. Units are represented by symbols on the map, a satellite receiver dish for radar, airport for air bases, crudely shown as lines; cities as solid circles, or squares depending on the population. While the interface is easy to use, navigate and ideal for displaying information needed to play effectively, it is never lets you forget you are playing a video game. This is in part due by the very concept, nonetheless it implies something much more crucial and profound; that is, war, is and has been, reduced to a video game.

Standing alone this a minor point. It is the element and subject matter that makes this concept so fundamental. War by its nature must involve an abhorrently large number of people, civilians and soldiers alike, and all sides must be represented. In DEFCON they are but not in any appreciable form. In the Command & Conquer series units were rendered and visibly died (or exploded) DEFCON removes even this vague depiction. A typical carrier task force involves one – three aircraft carriers, ten – twenty auxiliary ships that cumulatively represent five-ten years construction time, and crewed by ten-twenty thousand individuals. DEFCON shows all this destruction merely by an icon disappearing on a very large and unremarkable digital board. No explosion, no blood, no debris, no emotion.

Being a simulation rather then a historical representation there is no story line. This makes the former point especially remarkable. With no main characters, and no flashy visual eye candy the player is dropped into a world devoid of not only emotion, but loyalties. Arguably the most demoralizing element in all of this are several subtle sound effects. When playing occasionally you will hear coughing, maybe a sneeze, and when the bombs start falling, people crying. All of this is to generate the impression of being in the control hub – specifically North American Air Defense Command (better known as NORAD) during a thermonuclear war. It is this combination of digital design, lack of player – character – computer/AI interaction that drives the most important aspects of DEFCON and it is those facets that so successfully dehumanize the player into committing on-screen atrocities.

The best evidence to this fact is the scoring system. It is this same system that truly shows the worthlessness of human life by encouraging destruction and inevitably killing. While a player can play exclusively against the computer AI DEFCON is designed to be a multiplayer game with up to six people at any one time. The default scoring is where two points are awarded for killing every one million enemies, (this is considered a “megadeath”, accomplished by nuking cities) you lose one point for every million you lose. The second is Genocide where one point is awarded per megadeath. Lastly is Survivor where all players are given one-hundred points to begin with and lose one point per megadeath inflicted upon them. In any of the scenarios the objective is the same; kill your enemies and indiscriminate between civilians and soldiers. Bolstering this fact is the fearful reality that it is impossible to successfully defend all your cities from attack. At each launch of a nuclear weapon a launch detection warning is sent and a missile appears, a dashed line marking its trajectory. Assuming it survives to its target (and that target is a city) a white dot flashes on the screen at the impact site. Instantly three things occur; first, the population of the city decreases, second, the city population icon changes, third, your score is impacted. This process is repeated time and time again until eventually the bombs and missiles stop.

Beyond DEFCON is the entire concept of integrating and modeling war through game theory. This entire notion began with the military soon after World War 2. Using complex sets of equations, statistics and available data computers were able to devise scenarios for virtually any battleground, in any circumstance, on the globe. The end result of this ability is to predict the outcome of a battle on paper before hand. In past conflicts warfare has been somewhat attributed to an art form; one strategy countering another, a delicate dance that is repeated until one makes a mistake or feigns from exhaustion in manpower or resources. The decisions of front line troops under influence by orders from headquarters decided the victor; that is no longer the case, powerful computers capable of limited intelligence are upsetting the intragel balance between peace and combat. What once are abstract equations are now automatically being analyzed and acted upon. Military theory and statistics has moved from simply being math and projections to controlling the most powerful and lethal constructions humanity has ever devised; like in DEFCON, these know neither ethics, nor morals, their only consideration is in numbers and projections.

The world today is marked not by champions of peace but by increasing violence around the globe. As mastery of technology increases so does the chance of escaping the very horrors that made past wars so monumental. When missiles and bombs are automatically guided and controlled by television cameras, robots swim, fly, fight and die at the touch of a button or tilt of a joystick; the very act of killing becomes mute. DEFCON is a game that builds and furthers this notion in the most haunting and horrific scenario that war can possibly bring. It is by removing the emotions and producing an expressionless form of art that allows us all to discover our humanity, perhaps preventing the very thing we are creating for joyful entertainment on-screen.

GDC Day 2 (Tuesday)

Wednesday, March 7th, 2007

Microsoft’s Game Developer Day

The first session had a lot of tips on producing games that will run on Windows Vista (security features, changes to DirectX, installation, etc.)
The second session covered XNA Game Studio Express and included a live demo of creating a single game that can then be played on either Windows or Xbox 360. Caveat: you have to pay $99 a year to create games for the 360 (enrollment in the XNA Creators Club – you can read more about the benefits of this at the XNA Team’s Blog).

Physics for Game Developers

The second half of the day Jeff and I switched to the “Physics for Game Developers” session. We slipped in at “Numerical Robustness for Geometric Computations” and stayed through two collision presentations.
The presenters of this session very kindly put all their slides online. They also have the presentations from previous years on their site as well.

Columbia College Chicago’s Booth at GDC

We got the booth set up tonight with two flat panel monitors showing student work, brochures about our program, our recent newsletter, and free 512mb usb drives (ultra cool with game.colum.edu on the lanyard). We also have some posters with photos from our motion capture studio, our game research lab, and screenshots of student work.

Frasca’s a punk…

Monday, December 11th, 2006

After reading the article aboout simulation and narrrative, I am reminded yet again that I strongly believe that the people who write about video games in a sociological sense have never in their lives played any video game created after 1993. The idea that simulation will replace narrrative games is, to me at least, completely ludicrous. The most popular games have a narrative. That is not to say that non-narrative games like Guitar Hero and DDR do have have a fan base, but to true gamers, narrartive will always dictate whether or not a game is successful. Look at the Final Fantasy series. 40+ hours off narrative gameplay and each game in the series sells like crazy. Metal Gear Solid also has a strong narratiive and sells like crazy. I don’t think advancing technology takes the pressure off the narrative or makes it obsolete. If anything, better technology gives designers the opportunity to make an even better narrative, more engaging and interactive. Just as an example, look at the best selling FPS’s. They are all story driven. Regardless of how ridiculous the story of Halo may be, without it, I don’t believe Haalo would have sold as well. The player was engaged and, when the Flood showed up, I don’t think anyone was not scared out of their pants. Another example, look at the Doom series. The first two Dooms had little to no plot. What happened when technology advanced enough to make a really good looking game? Doom 3 suddenly had a plot, and a somewhat in depth one. Narrative will never die out and Frasca is an unexperienced gamer, if she is a gamer at all. This is yet another article tthat annoys me with the lack of actual experience from the author. Boo.