The BBFC came to town a few months ago

A few months back John Wagaland from the BBFC came in for a lecture.

Firstly it was pointed out that the BBFC is required to adhere to a large amount of legislation, but that’s understandable, the man said that the BBFC has to take great care when reviewing a film and it’s suitability for the cinema and without the legislation that would be harder to do. The sorts of legislations he presented provided a sort of guideline of how they should rate the films.

Later he actually went on to talk about the examining process for films.

Examiners have a number of duties, one of them is obviously viewing the film, it is also an examiners duty to go to a meeting regarding the film they viewed and there they would talk about how they should rate it. There a few more duties that each examiner has, and every examiner has to do them.

The actual examination of the films is a simple process, first the film is viewed in pairs. Though apparently there are some occasions where the film will be viewed alone or with more than two people. This is to make sure that it isn’t just your subjective opinion on what’s appropriate and not. Usually the viewing lasts over five hours a day. Later the viewers sit down and review each other’s notes of the film and compile it into an examiners log.

A nice, clean, simple process for viewing the films.

After John got all the duties and stuff out of the way we started watching clips of video and he asked us how we would rate these if we were working for the BBFC. 

The first clip he showed us was a Disney short film where a young man was tumbling around inside a washing machine. John made a comment about how the film that they were assessing did not get a U rating because of the short film at the start of it. He made a comment about how this stunt could be imitate able by young children and how the parents in the clip saw this all as a joke, therefore encouraging kids to do it.

I can understand that.

Later on he showed us a clip of a British film where a woman was savagely beaten into her car where a man was shouting an offensive word starting with the letter C. He told us that he’d rate that film an 18. This was because he said that any film with visible violence and vile language that was used as an attack could only be rated 18 or be inappropriate to begin with.

When we watched a clip of The Dark Knight John said they rated the film 12A and then got a lot of bother for it, however then he pointed out that there is no actual violence shown on screen, it was all implied and there was not even any blood when people got shot. So that was appropriate. 

When put in contrast to the other clip that was rated 18, which made a lot of sense. Although I think that The Dark Knight should have been a 15 because of other violent moments in the film, such as two-faces’ second face which is literally just muscle tissue, and a hospital being blown up. But that’s just me.

Later John started talking about how they would rate games.

He began by saying that they played the games with all the cheats, they had access to all the levels and content so they could give the game a fair rating, while taking everything the game has into consideration.

The exam process for the game is largely similar except there are other things that the board has to take into consideration.

During a game examination they have to take into consideration the appropriateness of the weapons in the game, if there are weapons. Take notice of all the nudity in the game, what kind of criminal activities there might be, whether there are drugs in it or not, the violence and vile language. All those sorts of things, however since it’s a game they have to take a look at how all those things are used to either enhance the experience of the game or if they’re just there to be disturbing.

Manhunt was a game that was deemed too violent for release into the public because of the various and inappropriate ways to kill people.

The other things that they take into consideration while assessing games is the art style that the game uses, the moral values of the game whatever they could be and a wide range of other things.

In all I enjoyed sitting in on this lecture, it was good fun watching all the videos and I had a moment where I ducked my head in shame when I could recognise the Japanese anime cartoon the man started showing.

What every game developer needs to know about story.

John Sutherland talks about stories in games in one of his Articles which we had to read a few months back. He starts off by noting some of the common misconceptions in the story of games.

At the very start of the article he makes a very clear statement that most games designers treat story as dialogue and as something that does not matter. He mentions that Story is actually a large part of games nowadays and the dialogue is important.

The other thing that he makes very clear from the start of his article is that story is conflict; and that is something that I can completely agree with. It makes perfect sense to me; since some of my spare time is dedicated to writing I have formed some sort of understanding of what is at the core of each good story. That is conflict.

But when you think about it, conflict is at the centre of anything or at least most things, comedy is the product of conflict and so is drama. Almost every genre requires conflict, and so every story will have conflict in it, in video games conflict is especially important because most of the interface with the player and the video game is in the form of the players’ endless conflict against the waves of enemies that fly towards him or her.

He mentions that conflict in some way should throw the players world out of balance.

Sutherland later goes on about how a classic story would move in a game, mostly outlining the basic bones of the story of the heroes’ journey, talks about some other important aspects such as the reversals.

The reversals are the sort of new information that is crucial for the story, it gives a character a reason to go on with his journey when things are looking hopeless, or it hinders the hero by showing new information about how the villain is still alive. Either way, it’s something that will drive the hero through his journey and expand the story universe.

Sutherland said that reversals happen each act and while I believe that to a certain extent I sometimes feel that once act thee rolls around reversals stop happening. It is time for the resolution of the story and there is no time for another reversal. During act three the heroes are ready, the villains are ready and there they have their massive showdown. Unless a reversal happens in the middle of a losing fight, like the hero gets an epiphany of some sort then I don’t welcome them in the final act.

When Sutherland starts talking about Empathy and protagonist flips, right before that he talks about the three types of conflict.

I feel that conflict helps the players build empathy for the character. For example; using internal struggle the character is more empathetic because the player gets in on his personal demons, the things he is worried about, and that makes the character more interesting. When the protagonist is in the middle of interpersonal conflict you empathise with him or her. External conflict is to provide some sort of adrenaline pump as it appears in the form of manly gun fights or fisticuffs. Either way, conflict, specifically internal and interpersonal help build the players’ empathy for the protagonist.

Sutherland mentions how it’s harder for the storyteller to control what happens in the world if the protagonist is out of his control and in the hands of the player, while this concern would apply only to RPG’s where the player get’s to make multiple choices, it’s still a valid point. Keeping the story engaging would be hard without the control of the protagonist.

There is little for me to say about the rest of the article, Sutherland goes on to talk about the three act structure and some other minor things that I really already was aware of.

In any case, the things I did learn I learned and while there was little I could take away that I didn’t know, I took it and I’ll be using my new knowledge in the future. I also need to learn some humility but that’s beside the point. 

1. John Sutherland, “Gamasutra - Features - What Every Game Developer Needs to Know about Story”, July 27, 2005, http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2359/what_every_game_developer_needs_to_.php.

Vidiot

A few months ago we had to read another article by Costikyan entitled “Don’t be a Vidiot”. Though there was a question that we had to answer during the session, I didn’t quite remember what that question was, however I did pick up on quite a few interesting things that Costikyan had said in the article and recently I have been thinking a little bit about them

In the article itself he talks a lot about the different kinds of games that are out there, ranging from board games to live action role-plays (do not want) and he says that games designers should be well versed in the art of games design, and not get all their knowledge only from video games, rather a game designer will try out a whole lot of different games and not just digital.

Well this got me thinking, for a little bit... Am I what he called a vidiot? I guess in some respects I am a vidiot, I mean I mostly play video games, I don’t play board games that often. But somehow I don’t know, the games I play I play for fun rather than to learn the design behind it (however I’ve been doing that less and less as I went through the course) and to be fair I’ve played a lot of board games in the past. Specifically trading card games and dice rolling board games that involved decision making.

Of the different game types that Costikyan talks of I must say that I have played at least one of each genre he mentions save for live action role-plays.

To answer my own question, no, I don’t think I am a Vidiot, especially of late. I have been playing a lot more board games and taking their particular mechanics into mind when thinking of games, same with digital games. I have been a lot more open minded with games recently, not that I have not always been, but now I am more so.

  1. Greg Costikyan, “Don’t Be a Vidiot”, 1998, http://www.costik.com/vidiot.html.

Hears, Clubs, diamonds, Spades: Players who suit MUDS

Wow, blogger really messed up this post, please bear with it.

A few months back we were discussing an article which held my interest very strongly, this article was about MUDs, otherwise known as multi-user domains, and as an experienced participant in these domains and a recurring player in many MMO’s.

These are basically MMORPGs and the article is written by Richard A. Bartle and called “HEARTS, CLUBS, DIAMONDS, SPADES: PLAYERS WHO SUIT MUDS” and this is all about the different play styles that players might adapt in an MUD.

First of all Bartle goes on to split players up into four interest groups, Socialisers, Achievers, Killers and Explorers and explains each group in some detail separately.

He talks about Achievers first. Bartle says that Achievers are people who like to achieve well in the game in terms of points, this can include getting the best gear, being the highest level, having the most gold or whatever. Basically people that like to achieve things in a game, no matter how insignificant that achievement can be to real life.

He then speaks a little about Explorers. Explorers are people who are most interested in exploring the vast world created in the MUD, as according to Bartle, they only see socialising and killing as a sort of thing to help them get from one place to another.

Moving on to socialisers, he says that they are the kind of people who would rather meet people over a game and form relationships like friendship in the actual game, because it’s quite an easy thing to do in an MUD as there are millions of other players playing at the same time as you.

Lastly he talks about the killing oriented players. These players like to kill other players to prove how much stronger they are, or just for the thrill of it. They might be graduated Achievers who are not bored and just want to kill other players.

After reading this bit I sat there and thought for a second, eventually I nodded to myself and said “Explorer” in these MUDs that I play I’m usually more interested in exploring new places, no matter how hazardous my journeys might take me. Only I do it in a more nerdy way and start taking the whole exploring a new world thing too seriously (as I do with many things that aren’t really important) and make up a little story for my avatar and why he or she is exploring this new world.

Later Bartle shows a little graph that shows what kind of interest each type of player has in the game, this is simply split up into four other categories, it’d be easier to just show it, actually.

                                 ACTING

                  Killers            |                  Achievers

                                     |

                                     |

                                     |

                                     |

                                     |

          PLAYERS -------------------+------------------- WORLD

                                     |

                                     |

                                     |

                                     |

                                     |

                  Socialisers        |                  Explorers

                                INTERACTING

This is the little chart that shows the interests that each type of player has in the game as according to Bartle. While looking at it I reflected on myself a little bit and how unsociable I am in MUDs, despite always wanting help with a dungeon I can’t clear or something. Whatever, I found that I’d fit in the world interest column as I am also part achiever in MUDs.

Basically what this chart does show is how some interests for each different type of player can be shared between each other, for example; a killer and a socialiser may both take interest in the players of the MUD however a socialiser and an explorer may enjoy interacting with the players to get things done in the game. Simple.

Since MUD’s were still young, or less popular at the time this article was made it was hard to judge how players may behave towards other types of players. Some of the points Bartle has made, however, are very good and still apply to the current age of MUD players.

He later goes on to talk about how each of these player types interact with each other and their thoughts on one and another. In my opinion I think Bartle did a very good job assigning these behaviours to the player types and the way the players act now still reflect in Bartles’ observation regarding the subject.

1. Richard Bartle, “Richard A. Bartle: Players Who Suit MUDs”, 1996, http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm.