It's not so much focused on demonstrating your own values so much as it's about UI and the conduct that the UI is able to generate through cause and effect.
Like in GTA, do you try to talk our your problems or do you shoot first and ask questions later? The UI will repeatedly encourage you to shoot first and players will learn that, because if you won't, your enemies will.
This is the definition of value they're using, which I guess applies in this case: "A value is an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct is preferable to other potential modes of conduct".
Seems like a weird use of the word "values" to me as it's essentially about being able to figure out how it's best to progress rather than moral beliefs as the term may imply for many people.
EDIT: Yet they try to mix these interchangeably in the paper, with examples like "a value of PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT means that we will choose to put out the recycling on Tuesday evening, rather than put all our plastic in with the regular trash." - the reason you believe that is probably not because you stopped progressing and there was nothing else to do. I suppose this is the distinction between "video game values" and real world values. But I think it's important to note the lack of overlap and reasoning, which I'm not sure this paper does. Though maybe it does say something about our real world values changing to get the job done.
> Compare, for example, the ubiquitous software application PowerPoint [171]
and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas [211]. We can identify four key differences
in interaction which help to characterise video game play as distinct. First, in
using PowerPoint, a user’s primary objective is the creation of a presentation and
the interaction is a means to this end. In playing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas,
however, a player’s primary objective is play and the interaction is an end in
itself. Second, given this difference, users of PowerPoint expect the interface to
be as unobtrusive as possible, while players of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
are specifically focused on the interface as they play: the interface is the game.
Third, while we generally think of PowerPoint as solely facilitating our work, Grand
Theft Auto: San Andreas frequently assigns tasks such as killing gang members,
evading the police, or navigating the world. Finally, in PowerPoint the ideal user
experience is seamless and without error, but a successful playing of Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas will inevitably and acceptably include mistakes, challenges, and
the frequent death of the player’s avatar.
This is the first thing I saw in his paper and I have to say those claims are, well, interesting. And I say this as someone who plays video games. I can think of numerous counterexamples to each claim and even examples that conflict with every claim. Take Dwarf Fortress, who's interface is the bane of every player's existence, or Human Resource Machine which is essentially a learn-to-program game and therefore most serves its purpose when its emulating a beginner's version of MSVC. Minecraft's creative mode offers no fail states, cathartic killing sprees or explicit challenge, but merely stimulates parts of the brain capable of 3D processing. Competitive gaming like CS:GO, COD, Dota (and about 30 more) also don't fit into this model of games.
Admittedly I'm not a PhD in anything, much less video games, but this paper's analysis seems to fall short of explaining most games.
I guess I don't know enough philosophy to understand some of the jokes.
Anthropomorphism: the apple moves like the snake, man was made to the image of god and so on.
Apocalypticism: the game just ends after a few moves without notice.
Asceticism: the game ends if you eat the apple, you are supposed to be like a faquir.
Capitalism: you start the game with 50, spend 10 each apple you eat - when you are broke you can't afford the apple.
Casualism: I had to Google this one, the screen just flashes
with random squares.
Conservatism: just the plain old snakes game.
Determinism: the snake just moves by itself and you are unable to control the game - your destiny was set in stone the moment you were born.
Dualism: you can control the snake body with the regular controls, and you can move the snake mind with your mind. My mind is too weak so I was unable to move the snake mind.
Existentialism: you move the snake in a dark screen - after reading the wikipedia I guess the joke has to do with freedom in a meaningless world.
Holism: the whole screen moves with the snake (makes it very hard to get the apples in the corners)
Idealism: imagine you are playing a game of snakes
Monism: your play is not restrained by the walls - after reading it I guess the joke is about you being made of the same substance of god or something like that
Narcissism: when you finish the game it sends an email to the creator about how much you love his work.
Nihilism: just a black screen, no snake, no apples - nothing in the world really exists.
Optimism: you see apples everywhere but looks like they are not nourishing because the snake doesn't grow.
Pessimism: the play field is smaller and the apples appear outside of the walls where you are unable to reach.
Positivism: you see only a narrow part of the play field, I guess the joke is that you are unable to know the universe because our senses are limited.
Post-apocalypticism: no apples, you just move through a scrambled play field.
Romanticism: every time you eat an apple you see a cheeky statement like "food tastes like ashes when I'm not sharing it with you".
Stoicism: like a plain old snake game but you don't die when you hit the walls or yourself - after reading the wikipedia article I guess the joke is that virtue is sufficient for happiness, so the sage is immune to misfortune.
Utilitarianism: you have only two very narrow paths, one with 5 apples and other with one apple. If you take the one with more apples you win, otherwise you loose.
Just few comments based on my interpretations (not necessary more correct):
Anthropomorphism: as apple moves, you attribute intentions and feelings to it - now it flees, now it gave up and so on.
Determinism: you start out as usual trying to control the snake, but very quickly realize everything is predetermined and your sense of control is illusion.
Monoism: we are all part of oneness, you are devouring yourself.
Nihilism: I especially liked that you cannot go back to menu, you have to refresh the page. It's kind of a dead end in terms of meta-game (game of games).
Optimism: The reason you are not growing is that would make the game more difficult. You stay forever a child.
Positivism's actually quite interesting from a game design point of view --- because you can only see in front of you, you can't tell where your snake is or how big it is; so you're playing blindly, waiting for that moment when you get long enough that you start glimpsing parts of your own tail coming out of the darkness... it genuinely adds new interest to a really tired old game.
(Although, UI-wise, I'd like the play area to distinguish between spaces which you can see but don't contain anything and spaces which you can't see.)
Romanticism: don't forget the mood-setting music in the background.
Stoicism: you can however lock yourself up, ending with no valid direction for next move. However, the game doesn't end, so you have to restart. There's probably a philosophical implication here, though I can't think of one.
The game is a great opportunity to scan through the definition of each of the scientific terms and get an understanding. And your list is a perfect motivation to compare my comprehension with your summary of each game variant. Thanks.
I take issue with their representation of determinism: since chains of cause and effect are what connects your actions to your will, it should in fact be the only version of the game where the player gets to control the snake :)
In conservatism: The snake doesn't grow immediately when eating the apple, it freezes for a frame and then increases in size, showing the reluctance to change.
I wish Pessimism would have let the snake move outside the constrained bounds. That would have told the player that pessimism may be painting a darker "reality" than what it really is.
Beautiful, I loved the "value" aspect of it, but I found the simple, but good game design the best part. A lot of people know to have a chime play when you pick up an "apple" in games for pavlovian reasons, but fewer would add that nice hum that movement created in general. It makes moving through space both a visual and auditory experience.
Socialism: there are two snakes, and the 10 points for eating an apple gets split between them.
Communism: the game starts as Capitalism with two snakes, but then the game switches to Socialism, and the 50$ (or remainder) gets expropriated and split between the two snakes.
Late Communism: Starts like Communism, but more and more points for apples get allocated to the AI snake (and fewer to you) because it's a member of the communist party.
Late Late Communism: Like Late Communism, but eventually no more apples appear. Game implodes and turns back into Capitalism, but the party member snake has all the money.
Platonism: another game runs in parallel alongside this one, but the snake is perfect and the highest possible score is obtained.
It's little games based on Snake for various "isms":
For a couple of examples, the dualism version says "Arrows control snake body. Mind controls snake mind." and utilitarianism gives you two dead-end paths, one with 1 food and one with 5 food. Stoicism lets you run into walls and just sit there without losing.
So good, abstract concept art in such a cute video game package. I can't play it for that long, but getting through the list feels more meaningful than if I'd spent two weeks mastering an amazing high score.
[+] [-] jashkenas|9 years ago|reply
I only wish that someone would put it into a nondescript arcade cabinet in a hallway somewhere, so that people could stumble across it unprepared.
Edit: Naturally, it turns out that Mr. Barr has a PhD in this sort of thing, and that his thesis has to do with how we demonstrate our values during the course of playing video games. http://www.pippinbarr.com/academic/Pippin_Barr_PhD_Thesis.pd...
[+] [-] problems|9 years ago|reply
Like in GTA, do you try to talk our your problems or do you shoot first and ask questions later? The UI will repeatedly encourage you to shoot first and players will learn that, because if you won't, your enemies will.
This is the definition of value they're using, which I guess applies in this case: "A value is an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct is preferable to other potential modes of conduct".
Seems like a weird use of the word "values" to me as it's essentially about being able to figure out how it's best to progress rather than moral beliefs as the term may imply for many people.
EDIT: Yet they try to mix these interchangeably in the paper, with examples like "a value of PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT means that we will choose to put out the recycling on Tuesday evening, rather than put all our plastic in with the regular trash." - the reason you believe that is probably not because you stopped progressing and there was nothing else to do. I suppose this is the distinction between "video game values" and real world values. But I think it's important to note the lack of overlap and reasoning, which I'm not sure this paper does. Though maybe it does say something about our real world values changing to get the job done.
[+] [-] tinalumfoil|9 years ago|reply
This is the first thing I saw in his paper and I have to say those claims are, well, interesting. And I say this as someone who plays video games. I can think of numerous counterexamples to each claim and even examples that conflict with every claim. Take Dwarf Fortress, who's interface is the bane of every player's existence, or Human Resource Machine which is essentially a learn-to-program game and therefore most serves its purpose when its emulating a beginner's version of MSVC. Minecraft's creative mode offers no fail states, cathartic killing sprees or explicit challenge, but merely stimulates parts of the brain capable of 3D processing. Competitive gaming like CS:GO, COD, Dota (and about 30 more) also don't fit into this model of games.
Admittedly I'm not a PhD in anything, much less video games, but this paper's analysis seems to fall short of explaining most games.
[+] [-] kderbe|9 years ago|reply
http://www.pippinbarr.com/games/breaksout/
http://www.pippinbarr.com/games/pongs/Pongs.html
[+] [-] scardine|9 years ago|reply
Anthropomorphism: the apple moves like the snake, man was made to the image of god and so on.
Apocalypticism: the game just ends after a few moves without notice.
Asceticism: the game ends if you eat the apple, you are supposed to be like a faquir.
Capitalism: you start the game with 50, spend 10 each apple you eat - when you are broke you can't afford the apple.
Casualism: I had to Google this one, the screen just flashes with random squares.
Conservatism: just the plain old snakes game.
Determinism: the snake just moves by itself and you are unable to control the game - your destiny was set in stone the moment you were born.
Dualism: you can control the snake body with the regular controls, and you can move the snake mind with your mind. My mind is too weak so I was unable to move the snake mind.
Existentialism: you move the snake in a dark screen - after reading the wikipedia I guess the joke has to do with freedom in a meaningless world.
Holism: the whole screen moves with the snake (makes it very hard to get the apples in the corners)
Idealism: imagine you are playing a game of snakes
Monism: your play is not restrained by the walls - after reading it I guess the joke is about you being made of the same substance of god or something like that
Narcissism: when you finish the game it sends an email to the creator about how much you love his work.
Nihilism: just a black screen, no snake, no apples - nothing in the world really exists.
Optimism: you see apples everywhere but looks like they are not nourishing because the snake doesn't grow.
Pessimism: the play field is smaller and the apples appear outside of the walls where you are unable to reach.
Positivism: you see only a narrow part of the play field, I guess the joke is that you are unable to know the universe because our senses are limited.
Post-apocalypticism: no apples, you just move through a scrambled play field.
Romanticism: every time you eat an apple you see a cheeky statement like "food tastes like ashes when I'm not sharing it with you".
Stoicism: like a plain old snake game but you don't die when you hit the walls or yourself - after reading the wikipedia article I guess the joke is that virtue is sufficient for happiness, so the sage is immune to misfortune.
Utilitarianism: you have only two very narrow paths, one with 5 apples and other with one apple. If you take the one with more apples you win, otherwise you loose.
[+] [-] veli_joza|9 years ago|reply
Anthropomorphism: as apple moves, you attribute intentions and feelings to it - now it flees, now it gave up and so on.
Determinism: you start out as usual trying to control the snake, but very quickly realize everything is predetermined and your sense of control is illusion.
Monoism: we are all part of oneness, you are devouring yourself.
Nihilism: I especially liked that you cannot go back to menu, you have to refresh the page. It's kind of a dead end in terms of meta-game (game of games).
Optimism: The reason you are not growing is that would make the game more difficult. You stay forever a child.
[+] [-] david-given|9 years ago|reply
(Although, UI-wise, I'd like the play area to distinguish between spaces which you can see but don't contain anything and spaces which you can't see.)
[+] [-] paraboul|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|9 years ago|reply
Stoicism: you can however lock yourself up, ending with no valid direction for next move. However, the game doesn't end, so you have to restart. There's probably a philosophical implication here, though I can't think of one.
[+] [-] lima|9 years ago|reply
Trolley problem.
[+] [-] techman9|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Retra|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madethemcry|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tsukikage|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vollmond|9 years ago|reply
Ahhh, thank you for this list. For me (playing in Firefox), the narcissism ending just opened an empty Chrome instance...
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] harikv73|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] literallycancer|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pippinbarr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Beltiras|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] valine|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thomk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diegorbaquero|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] striking|9 years ago|reply
And personally, I thought it was brilliant. I played that level for a solid few minutes trying to figure out what the twist was.
[+] [-] clay_to_n|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ehsankia|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jug|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] platz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imsofuture|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] justaguyonline|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] msluyter|9 years ago|reply
Socialism: there are two snakes, and the 10 points for eating an apple gets split between them.
Communism: the game starts as Capitalism with two snakes, but then the game switches to Socialism, and the 50$ (or remainder) gets expropriated and split between the two snakes.
Late Communism: Starts like Communism, but more and more points for apples get allocated to the AI snake (and fewer to you) because it's a member of the communist party.
Late Late Communism: Like Late Communism, but eventually no more apples appear. Game implodes and turns back into Capitalism, but the party member snake has all the money.
Platonism: another game runs in parallel alongside this one, but the snake is perfect and the highest possible score is obtained.
[+] [-] dsego|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ursus_bonum|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Wizek|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lovemenot|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ndh2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thomk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trop|9 years ago|reply
http://www.zefrank.com/christian/ http://www.zefrank.com/buddhist/ http://www.zefrank.com/atheist/
[+] [-] mikeash|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nsxwolf|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ctoth|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wlesieutre|9 years ago|reply
For a couple of examples, the dualism version says "Arrows control snake body. Mind controls snake mind." and utilitarianism gives you two dead-end paths, one with 1 food and one with 5 food. Stoicism lets you run into walls and just sit there without losing.
[+] [-] fao_|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pashariger|9 years ago|reply
Really enjoyed the Stoicism & Narcissism versions.
[+] [-] TazeTSchnitzel|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simplehuman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhardih|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dahart|9 years ago|reply
I think romanticism had me laughing the hardest.