3-D Ant

Simulators often have a dedicated group of fans that often mod, add to and improve the simulator of their liking. Besides a few popular simulators (sims and simcity) I've never really used a simulator. Though lately I have been captivated by Kerbal Space Program. It's a space exploration simulator that let's you build rockets and launch and manoeuvre them.

Source: Fatal1ty.com

Most of the time simulators are perceived as different to games. There's usually no structure to guide a player nor is there an opponent. Still as ever being a game or not is not a dichotomy. KSP is one of those simulators that is beginning to bridge the divide.

One of the last updates for KSP has introduced a career mode. Instead of having ready access to all rocket parts from the start, you have to unlock several parts at a time by collecting research credits during missions. This forces you to think about efficiency and feasibility of your exploration missions. There will probably be a few more parameters added in the future, to make the carreer mode more challenging and realistic.

This career mode probably made it fun for me. Instead of having ready access to parts, I have to push myself while being introduced to space exploration on a step by step basis. Nothing is more frustrating then spending half an hour to get a craft in a lunar orbit, but crashing it during landing...

Simulator games can offer us many benefits as a training ground and often a cheap alternative for the real thing.

So here's a parable on space exploration, borrowed from the anime Space Brothers (宇宙兄弟):

Once there were ants, only able to move forward on a straight path.

These 1-D ants walked on and on, till they met an obstacle.

It was a rock, and all the ants halted their way and panicked.

"How do we get passed it? " they said amongst themselves.

One ant rose up and said, "follow me!".

The ant showed them how to move left around the obstacle.

and at a next rock another ant showed them to move right.

The 2-D ant was born.

Able to move forward, left, right and backwards (left+left, right+right).

They travelled far, they travelled wide.

In the end they hit an obstacle, as far as they could travel left and right.

"How do we get passed it? " they said amongst themselves.

Source: Kenny Meguro

Yet again an and rose up and said, "follow me!".

And they moved up, climbing the wall.

The 3-D ant was born.

How do games expand your world?

What is a game? (the ongoing project part I)

My thoughts on games and play seem to be evolving ^^ , so this blog is already a success to me.

I want to examine my following statement:

“A construct set up to facilitate play might even be the best definition of “game”, because the behaviour of play differs so much it's clearly hard to define universal characteristics of games.”

I guess the form of the construct that facilitates play can vary significantly, but if it didn’t facilitate play it wouldn’t be a game. To say that games are only played would be an understatement. Games are not only played, they are experienced and engaged. Games can be “watched” and enjoyed for their story, like a good tv-show. It’s even possible to live through otherwise dangerous experiences (like war situations or car races) using a game as a simulation. Games may demand strategies to be perfected as a player heads further into the game, a proverbial puzzle test. Some games are action packed to deliver a dose of adrenaline. There are even puzzle games, which makes me doubt if puzzles are not just games. In the end games cater to a wide range of interests.

The more I think about it, all games challenge at least one skill in an enjoyable way. Though the range of interests or skills to be challenged is immensely diverse, the enjoyable challenge that games provide seems a common denominator. Going back to the previous paragraph, it doesn’t have to be the challenge of skill alone that keeps the gamer engaged. Due to their interactive nature, games can create a layered experience without equal. In the end each player interacts with a game in a different way to create their own experience.

Still for a bit of falsification I thought about Minecraft and Lego. At least the original Minecraft was about building with blocks, like Lego but cheaper because you could make as many blocks as you'd like :p . Both can be played with and the play is enjoyable, they can even challenge skills like spatial insight and several creative skills. However they initially support unstructured play. They are building blocks for creation, calling the act of playing with Lego a game would be like calling drawing with pencils a game. In the end all games support play but nog all play needs games. What we call games seem to facilitate at least in part a structured form of play.

Why being social and games is a match

This post will be an extender of my previous post on the Ted talk of Kelly McGonigal on different impact stress can have, depending one the way you view stress. If you see it as harmful, it becomes harmful. If you see the effects of stress (higher heart rate and higher oxygen intake) as helpful to rise to a challenge it's not harmful at all.


Right now I want to explore a second fact she highlighted in her talk. Another hormone that's produced during stress is oxytocine. It's kind of the new super hormone that neuroscientists pride around with, but still let's have a look. This hormone makes you more likely to engage in social behaviour. So stress makes you more likely to be social. Social contact during stress can give you all kinds of benefits like help, support and banding together to have a revolution. Social contact in turn releases more oxytocine, and oxytocine helps shield your body against possible negative effects of stress. It also stimulates the regeneration of heart cells, repairing damage.

One factor that is mentioned a lot as a motivator to play games is social contact. This factor totally mystified me and probably will in more or lesser degree for a long while (I'm a solo player mostly). Before the age of computer generated adversaries games were table top games and the like, demanding a human counterpart. Humans can of course be challenging to play against and with. Still humans in those times were necessary, maybe you just liked the game and other players were a prerequisite to actually play.

However a uses-and-gratifications approach to games teaches us that games can also be used making a plea for social contact as a motivator to game. We can't deny that (with a few exceptions of course) we are social animals that reap many benefits and joy from social contact. Looking a players as a whole this means that one group of players simply plays because they like playing with other players, known or unknown to them. Games always seem to lower the boundaries for reaching out to others, like a kid meeting other kids by picking up a ball. (This makes me wonder how prevalent other factors of motivation are in people that are highly motivated to play a game because of social factors.)

Still I think that social contact is not always a motivator but can just as well be a result of video games. To become good at certain games like shooters you need peers to rise against, practice against and learn from. This the players that really like shooters more likely to meet other people.

Extending on the talk by Kelly, there's another group. Games certainly can be stressful and it's impact and outcome can vary to great extremes as demonstrated by the video. Certain players will have negative effects because of stress in games and even those who don't experience them can lower their stress level even more by engaging in social contact. Games can even make you more social, who would have guessed? Certainly not conservative digi haters.