I am currently carrying out some research creating elements of discrete game play from real world research and decision making, and this has meant a refresher in some of the toy games of Game Theory and wondering if in certain fields, such as climate change, there can be a Nash Equilibrium? Anyway, I reckon there may be a paper or two in the work we are currently carrying out, so we will see. Certainly in traditional climate change negotiation there has been a strong undercurrent of the most famous of toy games the "Prisoner's Dilemma" with politicians viewing climate change as antithetical to a strong economy, something which I think Sir Nicholas Stern pulled apart nicely in the Stern Report on the Economics of Climate Change.
Ian and I had a great debate with Dr Cameron Hepburn a while back on the application of Big Pig Little Pig (otherwise known as Boxed Pigs) in negotiations. Now I am not an expert on Game Theory, so hopefully I can get this right!
If you are not familiar with the toy game then I quote the following extract from an Economics exam question (http://www.kevinhinde.com/Micro2/ec425test2002.pdf):
Big Pig and Little Pig are put in a box with a button at one end and a shute that dispenses food into a trough at the other. The pigs have two possible strategies, Press Button and Wait at the trough. If both pigs choose Wait they each get 4 units of food. If both pigs press the button then they each get 5 units of food. If Little Pig presses the button and Big Pig waits at the trough, then Big Pig gets 10 units of food and Little Pig gets 0. Finally, if Big Pig presses the button and Little Pig waits, then Big Pig gets 4 units of food and Little Pig gets 2.
How does this related to international climate change negotiations? Well Big Pig is a highly industrialised nation (e.g. the USA, UK, Germany) and little pig is a developing nation. And the trough in this case is "reducing carbon emissions". "Press" in this case means "Act to reduce carbon emissions" and "Wait" in this case means "Do nothing". The units of food are units of economic growth.
Each pig wants to reduce their carbon emissions, but preferably only after the other pig has done so because any reduction of emissions is viewed as being in opposition to that holy grail of modern capitalism, the economy. So what does the big pig do? Well the big pig's strategy is entirely dependent on what he thinks the little pig will do and in effect that decision is based on another toy game, that of Chicken. In this case is who will blink first and cut emissions as they approach the cliff of climate change?.
The problem with many of these games is that they assume there is an equilibrium and that equilibrium might be to do nothing, or at least do nothing until the last possible moment after your competitor has acted.
But that is to deny the fundamental reality that there is no Nash Equilibrium here and that "no action" is actually an actively destructive response.
Friday, July 18, 2008
First March Complete! Onward Legion!
The team completed the First March of development on our new title, and yesterday was review time. The team did an excellent job of completing all the tasks and objectives for March 1 and in simple terms it means that we actually saw several basic elements of interaction on an entirely new platform (for us) and some testable code.
Now we take forward the good bits, and learn from the experiences of the march and push into March 2, which will produce some exciting developments with basic game elements taking shape.
I also get to commission more concept art which is always fun.
Now we take forward the good bits, and learn from the experiences of the march and push into March 2, which will produce some exciting developments with basic game elements taking shape.
I also get to commission more concept art which is always fun.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Games and Education
I was a speaker at the recent Visual Web Conference along with Lord Puttnam, Margaret Robertson, and Dan Hon on Games and Education. Lord Puttnam's speech was really very good and I was impressed by the depth of his understanding on climate change, games and learning, and his passion for all three. Damn, but it was uplifting.
Dan and I gave short talks on our particular areas (you can download my presentation below) followed by a panel session, chaired by Margaret.
One speaker asked "what gave games developers the right to interfere in education". The question was a good one, and I thought it raised an interesting point. Do we, as games developers, have a right to get involved in the educational debate. After all every 4-5 years a new generation of politicians wade into education and then the teachers often have to spend the next few years adjusting to these changes. Are games companies any different?
My personal take on it is that we want to help, but that to do so we need to be able to justify our claims about the efficacy of serious games. So in our case, a vital part of this is that we have an inhouse educational team (Ian, our creative director, was a teacher for many years, and Hannah and Matt are both experienced scientific researchers). But he is right, games companies wading into the educational debate could be problematic.
But the truth is, the teachers we have worked with have welcomed our input. We have given them tools to engage the pupils which let the teachers get on with their jobs and build on that interest that we have sparked. The teachers we interact with are used to games, and just like me, have grown up with them and understand the uses and the pitfalls.
What also really inspired me was that many of the pupils who most engaged with our games were the ones typically described as "struggling", yet they were very active, and able to help and more importantly, teach their fellow class members.
Perhaps the focus of the question should be: how can games help break down the archaic divide between being taught at, and actually being part of the teaching process yourself.
Which brings me round to another point: Over the last few years Red Redemption has gradually shifted from being a regular games company making games purely for entertainment and profit (a perfectly reasonable goal itself) to making socially conscious, persuasive games for fun and hopefully to help people learn more about important issues like climate change.
One of the most interesting parts about this evolution has been that a set of very clear goals have emerged and become core to our games development. These goals are:
You can download/view my presentation here (PDF, 1066KB).
Dan and I gave short talks on our particular areas (you can download my presentation below) followed by a panel session, chaired by Margaret.
One speaker asked "what gave games developers the right to interfere in education". The question was a good one, and I thought it raised an interesting point. Do we, as games developers, have a right to get involved in the educational debate. After all every 4-5 years a new generation of politicians wade into education and then the teachers often have to spend the next few years adjusting to these changes. Are games companies any different?
My personal take on it is that we want to help, but that to do so we need to be able to justify our claims about the efficacy of serious games. So in our case, a vital part of this is that we have an inhouse educational team (Ian, our creative director, was a teacher for many years, and Hannah and Matt are both experienced scientific researchers). But he is right, games companies wading into the educational debate could be problematic.
But the truth is, the teachers we have worked with have welcomed our input. We have given them tools to engage the pupils which let the teachers get on with their jobs and build on that interest that we have sparked. The teachers we interact with are used to games, and just like me, have grown up with them and understand the uses and the pitfalls.
What also really inspired me was that many of the pupils who most engaged with our games were the ones typically described as "struggling", yet they were very active, and able to help and more importantly, teach their fellow class members.
Perhaps the focus of the question should be: how can games help break down the archaic divide between being taught at, and actually being part of the teaching process yourself.
Which brings me round to another point: Over the last few years Red Redemption has gradually shifted from being a regular games company making games purely for entertainment and profit (a perfectly reasonable goal itself) to making socially conscious, persuasive games for fun and hopefully to help people learn more about important issues like climate change.
One of the most interesting parts about this evolution has been that a set of very clear goals have emerged and become core to our games development. These goals are:
- Socially-responsible: Consider the end use.
- Fun to play: Obvious, but essential and too often missed Its a game not a simulation.
- Focus on real-world: Even if you do so via the metaphor of a virtual world.
- Scientifically accurate: Source the data!
- Transparent: You have to build trust. Be open about limitations.
- Scoring Techniques: You’ll learn while you play by scoring players based on demonstrable knowledge gain.
- Non-Didactic: Don't preach!
You can download/view my presentation here (PDF, 1066KB).
Monday, July 14, 2008
Agile March 1
When I first heard that term "Agile March 1" I was confused - what is so Agile about the 1st of March? Can it cunningly dodge the bullet every 4 years due to the appearance of February 29th?
In the context of games development, it is the first push (or march) of an Agile development methodology. A methodology that emphasises rapid short development cycles with frequent evaluations. An approach that works best for small teams (which we are).
The team at Red Redemption are busily coming to the end of the first March of development on the first of the prototypes that we recently secured funding for. These developments are on the Nintendo DS, a platform we feel very excited about (everyone in the team has one) and that we also feel hasn't reached its full potential yet.
So the first March is about basics - getting to grips with the platform and ensuring it can do what we want it to do. Pushing it and seeing where it gives, and tackling some tricky issues at an early stage to avoide pitfalls later.
What is exciting about this is not necessarily the software development approach we are using, rather it is how the team has really pulled together on the project. They have a clear set of goals, nicely defined by Klaude our MD/Producer, and a clear strategic vision of what we are trying to achieve, and boy have they launched into it. As my role has changed from a day to day operational role to a more strategic and communications role, this has been an interesting experience for me as I am not directly involved in the March.
I feel like a proud father watching his baby (the company) grow up. There is a real sense of achievement over how the team has become a well oiled machine over the last few years. There is none of the politically charged motivations I have seen in other companies, rather there is a desire to problem solve as a team.
The newest members of the team Klaude (MD), Amy (my PA and Office Manager) and Robin (Developer) have all meshed really well with the existing team members (me, Hannah, Ian, Sam and Matt), but also brought some really creative new energy into the projects.
So next week is going to be interesting as the team complete the First March and then push on to the second. But so far things are looking good. They hit some obstacles last week, but were able to solve them in a very professional and robust way and that is exactly what the first March is all about.
In the context of games development, it is the first push (or march) of an Agile development methodology. A methodology that emphasises rapid short development cycles with frequent evaluations. An approach that works best for small teams (which we are).
The team at Red Redemption are busily coming to the end of the first March of development on the first of the prototypes that we recently secured funding for. These developments are on the Nintendo DS, a platform we feel very excited about (everyone in the team has one) and that we also feel hasn't reached its full potential yet.
So the first March is about basics - getting to grips with the platform and ensuring it can do what we want it to do. Pushing it and seeing where it gives, and tackling some tricky issues at an early stage to avoide pitfalls later.
What is exciting about this is not necessarily the software development approach we are using, rather it is how the team has really pulled together on the project. They have a clear set of goals, nicely defined by Klaude our MD/Producer, and a clear strategic vision of what we are trying to achieve, and boy have they launched into it. As my role has changed from a day to day operational role to a more strategic and communications role, this has been an interesting experience for me as I am not directly involved in the March.
I feel like a proud father watching his baby (the company) grow up. There is a real sense of achievement over how the team has become a well oiled machine over the last few years. There is none of the politically charged motivations I have seen in other companies, rather there is a desire to problem solve as a team.
The newest members of the team Klaude (MD), Amy (my PA and Office Manager) and Robin (Developer) have all meshed really well with the existing team members (me, Hannah, Ian, Sam and Matt), but also brought some really creative new energy into the projects.
So next week is going to be interesting as the team complete the First March and then push on to the second. But so far things are looking good. They hit some obstacles last week, but were able to solve them in a very professional and robust way and that is exactly what the first March is all about.
Back in Blighty
I'm back from my holidays, and boy did I have a good time. Spent most of my time either in Sweden, though I did have a quick trip to Bristol where I picked up some more games.
Bad bits of Bristol: Oh no! Travelling Man has gone! It was lovely shop that encouraged me to walk up and down Park Street, but it is no more.
Good bits of Bristol: Bought a whole stack of games at Area 51 including second hand copies of the original Games Workshop Dungeonquest (plus Catacombs) ad GW Blood Royale. I love Dungeon Quest and already had a copy, but my rules got heavily damaged plus the box got totalled, so I shall combined the two sets to form an uberset!
A typical Dungeonquest game goes like this: Run into dungeon to get ot the Dragon's chamber to steal lots of gold. Die. Horribly. Second attempt: Run into the dungeon, then run around in a small area searching for a trinket worth 10gp. Find one. Escape. Win. It is not quite as simple as that, but you get the drift.
Blood Royale is a great game. It might have been better entitled "Nob Breeding" as the essential core of the game is breeding up nobility like cattle and trading them for power. Fantastic.
I also picked up Last Night on Earth boardgame (not tried it yet), the two expansions for Arkham Horror I didn't already have (Kingsport and Dark Pharoah) and more roleplaying games including the lovely Sundered Skies.
As you might have ascertained, I am a big boardgame and RPG collector. I have I think, over 2,000 RPG books. They are what drives my love for gaming, and the essential fun of a roleplaying game experience shared with friends is something I am hoping to one day see in a computer game. Many computer games capture the mechanistic part of roleplaying, but nothing has quite capture the part that makes roleplaying a fun experience for me. Neverwinter nights in multiplayer seems to come close.
Anyone got any other games they would recommend I try out? No MMOGs please - been there, done that, not been convinced. Which reminds me that I must post my essay on why MMOGs so far haven't worked. It is something I wrote before embarking on Steel Law Online, and somethings are out of date, but there are many points which I am surprised to say still have relevance.
One of my life's tasks is to catalogue and create a full roleplaying library and then when it is complete, to probably donate it in its entirety to the Bodlean Library here in Oxford as a whole collection. Which means that sooner or later I will have to start collecting D&D, something I've thus far avoided as it isn't my thing.
As for Sweden it was fab, went back to my Viking roots... more on that another time when I cover Games and Religion.
Next post: Agile March 1
Bad bits of Bristol: Oh no! Travelling Man has gone! It was lovely shop that encouraged me to walk up and down Park Street, but it is no more.
Good bits of Bristol: Bought a whole stack of games at Area 51 including second hand copies of the original Games Workshop Dungeonquest (plus Catacombs) ad GW Blood Royale. I love Dungeon Quest and already had a copy, but my rules got heavily damaged plus the box got totalled, so I shall combined the two sets to form an uberset!
A typical Dungeonquest game goes like this: Run into dungeon to get ot the Dragon's chamber to steal lots of gold. Die. Horribly. Second attempt: Run into the dungeon, then run around in a small area searching for a trinket worth 10gp. Find one. Escape. Win. It is not quite as simple as that, but you get the drift.
Blood Royale is a great game. It might have been better entitled "Nob Breeding" as the essential core of the game is breeding up nobility like cattle and trading them for power. Fantastic.
I also picked up Last Night on Earth boardgame (not tried it yet), the two expansions for Arkham Horror I didn't already have (Kingsport and Dark Pharoah) and more roleplaying games including the lovely Sundered Skies.
As you might have ascertained, I am a big boardgame and RPG collector. I have I think, over 2,000 RPG books. They are what drives my love for gaming, and the essential fun of a roleplaying game experience shared with friends is something I am hoping to one day see in a computer game. Many computer games capture the mechanistic part of roleplaying, but nothing has quite capture the part that makes roleplaying a fun experience for me. Neverwinter nights in multiplayer seems to come close.
Anyone got any other games they would recommend I try out? No MMOGs please - been there, done that, not been convinced. Which reminds me that I must post my essay on why MMOGs so far haven't worked. It is something I wrote before embarking on Steel Law Online, and somethings are out of date, but there are many points which I am surprised to say still have relevance.
One of my life's tasks is to catalogue and create a full roleplaying library and then when it is complete, to probably donate it in its entirety to the Bodlean Library here in Oxford as a whole collection. Which means that sooner or later I will have to start collecting D&D, something I've thus far avoided as it isn't my thing.
As for Sweden it was fab, went back to my Viking roots... more on that another time when I cover Games and Religion.
Next post: Agile March 1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
