I believe all good games should have some kind of strategy behind them. When you pick up some experience playing a game, you can make more educated decisions about how to make your next move and continue to improve. Chess is a good example, although it might not be considered 'fun' because it leaves nothing to the imagination.  Some games depend mostly on the rolling of dice or spinning of a wheel, which involves no strategy, but what they lack in strategy they make up for by using the imagination. The mystery of what will happen next keeps the player entertained and the storyline is what makes the game enjoyable. Then we have team-based games, anything from football to multi-player first-person shooters, where the fun lies in cooperation, teamwork and thoughtful decision making.
     The 'I Love Bees' game was a perfect combination of strategy, adventure and cooperation, although it wasn't thought of a game at first. Gamers in anticipation of Halo 2 had discovered this weird hacked website that included no explanation of what it was about; there were vague messages and number combinations that were a complete mystery. The participants were forced to make up their own strategies to weed out the clues. They put together theories about what these clues meant and divided themselves into teams in order to test them out. This problem solving became fun not because there was a definite goal to prize to be earned, but because the whole idea behind it was unknown.
    When the GPS coordinates were discovered, help was needed by people who lived close to these points were able to participate by scoping out the locations. Players that might not have had any insight about the meanings of the riddles could at least help out by scouting the area for clues in real life and reporting back to the forums. Areas of expertise required for solving riddles and moving forward in the game were all over the place and ever-changing, and players were always on their toes waiting for the next opportunity to participate or catch up on others' progress. The fact the game took place both in cyberspace and reality is very interesting and reminds me of the geocaching phenomenon. Hidden all over the world are objects, often little canisters with rolls of paper inside. There is a website that gives riddles to find these things, organized by GPS coordinates, and people set out to find them in order to sign their names or switch the contents of the canisters.
     The 'I Love Bees' designers were actually constructing the game according to the actions of the players in real time, prepared with a dozen routes that the game may take depending on the progress of the players at any given moment. Eventually the players realized that the 'I Love Bees' game was telling a sort of back story about the Halo 2 game that had lured them into the mystery, and the anticipation of the next sound byte made the game all the more fun.
     I had to reread the first six pages of this article a few times (and visit the website) to understand what 'I Love Bees' was all about. My interest in video games fizzled out for a while after the end of the 16-bit era, but if I had known about this ARG game I would have been all over it. It was a fantastic idea, but I think the main reason it worked so well was because no one understood at first what was going on, and the fun came out of exploring the unknown in a community of individuals that were all working together for the same reason.
  

"Why I love Bees" paper

1)In your opinion, what makes games fun?

The things that make games for me are ones that require me to think, one with somewhat challenging puzzles, side quests, a story line, interesting visuals, the ability to collect things, and the ability to interact with other people.

Not all games include all of these things, but I tend to find that the more of these things a game include, the more I like it. One of the reasons I love any of The Legend of Zelda games is because they contain a story line (usually somewhat predictable though) with a main quest, as well as a huge variety of side quests, a number of items to collect in various ways, tons of puzzles that are challenging but not so hard that I lose interest, interesting visuals, and the ability to interact with other characters. In some of the Zelda games you can do battles with your friends.

What I do not enjoy about games is extreme repetition, like games that require you to mash and build your levels in order to continue on and defeat enemies. It's especially boring when you have to continually fight the same enemies a hundred times over in order to level up. The lack of difference in actions, scenes, and characters really makes me want to drop my controller and do something else.

A continued change of stimulus is really what I think is best for any person in order to make a game more interesting. The more stimulus the better, that's what we humans seem to like.

2)Which of these things (if any) were present in the I <3 Bees ARG? If not present, what made I <3 Bees fun?

The I <3 Bees ARG had a TON of changing stimulus, which is why I think it was so successful. While most games, as discussed in the article, are sort of pre-built and pre-coded entirely, this was a game that entirely depended on the users and entirely changed because of them. Not one moment of the game seemed the same.

The game started off with a basic main story-line, though not quite as spelled out and obvious as most games. Once the users began to decode the story line, the rest of the story line really seemed to depend upon their own actions.

The game was entirely a puzzle. If the entire game was made for one person, it would have been nearly impossible requiring expertise in all areas that most likely the person didn't have. However, since the game was based upon the contribution of many users, any contribution of any size in any area broke the puzzles up among the users into more manageable sizes, skill levels, and areas of expertise. Those who were better at literally interpreting the GPS points were able to successfully go out to those spots, while others who were more mathematically skilled could solve the puzzle in a less literal way that the other users may not have been able to.

I'm not entirely sure about the visuals or side quests, but I think the puzzles in themselves created side quests such as users literally going out into the real world, finding these GPS points, and reviving phone messages on pay phones. Based upon the graphics I've seen from the first and second Halo game, I have no doubt that the graphics were probably satisfying enough.

I'm not sure about collection objects, but I know there was a ton to collect among all of the data, GPS points, emails messages, forum messages, etc. The users themselves even required the collection of new things that may not have been necessarily planned, such as the entire language of Flea++ which was decoded and collected into a cheat sheet. There was also the collection of the calling map users made to figure out where and how often calls were received called Axon Coordination.

Of course, the most important aspect to this game, in my opinion, was the interaction among all of the users. The game basically required this interaction in order to function. Users shared data, teamed up to collect data, devised plans, discussed problems, etc. Here was a great example of a spontaneous moment required users to quickly divide, collect data, and share it among each other in order to succeed:

"At the start of the game, phones were scheduled to ring one at a time, with 

enough minutes spaced out between them so that the D.C. team of players could move from one 

to the next, methodically answering all of the calls and collecting all of the content. By the end of 

the game, all dozen phones were ringing at precisely the same second, forcing players to divide 

and conquer, while communicating in real-time with each other via mobile phones to compare 

answers to the questions and report any live challenges that were given" (McGonigal 36).


Overall I think that playing the game would have been extremely fun. While it didn't contain anything like "character dressup" (as far as I know) or large bosses to defeat (again, as far as I know), the game was so brilliantly made and brilliantly conducted by users that the level of stimulus far exceeded that of any typical game with petty things like dress up and item collection and level mashing.

I believe it's all about the stimulus, and this game certainly had it. 

Final Blog

The United States has not had a military draft since the Vietnam War era. For merely 50 years, it had not been peaceful either. From the heat of desert combat comes Operation Desert Shield, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom to the humid jungles of foreign territories serving Operation Western Accord and Operation African Lion, just to name a few. Battles had not always been overseas, as safeguarding our freedom is the duty of the United States military. Missions stateside span all over the United States as well, such as Operation Arrow, Operation Summit, and Operation Javalin's Thrust. 

Freedom like many things in the world, is not free. The challenge I propose here is to answer an extremely hard to answer question. How might game-styles mechanics improve or alter the way that future soldiers, units, and entire forces function? In short, did gaming put forth some type of help in recruiting, sustainability in military forces and advancement in today's world? Could that be the reason why we lack drafts?

Per recruiter say, Enlistment is at a all time high this past decade, of which I had sworn in on my oaths during the past decade as well.

I remember when I was a kid, there were video games like SWAT4, Call of Duty, Counter Strike, America's Army, Battlefield. All of which takes a different approach in intellectually stimulating the brain, creating a certain kind of interest in combat and adrenaline. But none of these games could even vaguely relate to what real experiences are. In part, maybe Battlefield 3 in the recent year could vaguely relate. I could make a list and point out the wrong in the different games. Call of Duty: Warfare is not run and gun, ranks are wrong, some weapons are not in service or even real in modern warfare (no pun intended). Counter Strike: Weapons animated and accuracy are wrong. America's Army: Soldiers simply don't do what they do in the game. The list can go on, but what's the point.

I do however want to cover the M4A1 service rifle, since I am a weapon enthusiast. We all remember Counter Strike right? Well the latest Counter Strike is built in Source engine coding. Renders a little more beautifully. (pic 1)


This is a photo shows the weapon M4A1 which is one of the service rifles of the United States Marine Corps, along with its sister rifle M16A4. Both are very similar, only difference really is the butt stock. Which the M4A1 is six stock collapsable while the sister rifle is a fixed butt stock affixed onto the lower receiver part of the weapon. When you first play this game, it's fun, it's exciting, it's intense, and it's realistic. But that realism quickly takes a turn after you play with any of the Colt series rifles.


Of course, besides the awesome $1800 price tag of an optics, if handled correctly, capable of ranging up to 800 yards point target. Well besides that, could you see a very big difference? (pic 2)

I was betting money that you couldn't find the difference, how about with this added photo. It should be more clear. This is a survivability difference. (pic 3)

The difference is in the ejection port and forward assist. The ejection port is the "hole" in which the spent round, the brass gets pulled out by the ejector in the bolt. While you load a new magazine regardless of size, the forward assist sits the round correctly into the chamber preventing a failure to fire when the trigger is squeezed. In short, it is built on the wrong side in the game, hence, the the reason why you have died, each and every round. Well what about left handed shooters, the weapon is built the same way. Colt Defense manufactures all of the M4A1. M16A2, and M16A4 that are still in operation in the United States Marine Corps. The reason for the ejection port to be on the right side is simply logical as the brass fly away versus across your face or worst, into your face.

Counter Strike Global Offense (CS:GO) is schedule to launch in the next few days. Consider the image, the problems had been fixed, and a fold up tactical sight is on this model of the M4. However, with a shorter barrel, and still inaccurate information regarding the weapon itself (along with all the other weapons). 

"If you make a game so realistic, you should finish the damn job."

Ejection port on the right side of the weapon for the reason that it won't hit yourself. I couldn't help but laugh at this guy for various reasons. His shooting posture is wrong, and being so fearful of being hit by brass and flinching. (video)

Assuming your combat buddies are not afraid of brass, the M4A1 is highly marketed in video games, and other recruiting usage, even recreational use. You would hardly find a gun range that won't rent you a M4A1.

If a video game is to be made with realistic intentions, perhaps it should follow through, especially in games that are all time classics like Counter Strike.

It makes me feel to this day I have yet to find a game that resembles truth in shooting a weapon. I know the day will come that a game will resemble so much reality that it would literally scare the #$@% out of me. Of course, I could say more about planting explosives in Counter Strike as well ;)

Entering Bomb Site A in DE_DUST using a M4A1. Counter Strike: Source, 2008. Source

Bottom: Colt M4 with Reflex Scope (22LR Caliber)Top: Colt M4 with Trijicon TA31-RCO ACOG Optics (5.56 NATO Caliber & 22LR Bolt Carrier Group Conversion)
2012 Personal Collection

Split second after firing a M4A1 with Trijicon TA31-RCO ACOG Optics (5.56 NATO Caliber)
2012 Personal Collection

Exiting CT Spawn Site in DE_DUST using a M4A1, Counter Strike Global Offense, 2012. Source

Project 3 Post

Group:
Micah
James
Thyrza
Cameron

Base Location:
Outside Paccar Hall, South entrance.

Concept:

The design of our project ushered an anonymous user into taking action (moving our object) by creating a familiar scenario of partaking in a "Quest"!

By this time, most everyone knows what it means to "go on a quest" or "go off on an adventure". The designated object would be the weapon carried by our player who uses it along the way to destroy enemies along his/her path.

Here is our written story seen by our possible participants:

"Come hither brave warrior, we seek your assistance against the forces of evil! We have been silenced by a magical wizard who has also captured our princess, lady Thyrza. Take arm of the holy weapon and follow us!"

The Hero's Weapon

 We have decided to set up targets along the path towards the other base in which our participant can either shoot the weapon or throw a water balloon. Drawn on each target is a commonly-encountered game creature in RPG or Adventure style games. Each target was hung within eyesight of each other so that the pathway was clear.

A fireball-casting Wizard that our warrior must defeat!

With our bread-crumb design and straightforward item all we needed was the ability to communicate to people what needed to be done. For risk assessment we also needed to think about what happens if a person leaves midway through the quest? What happens if we run out of water? How will the signs be placed in response to different surfaces (trees, walls, posts, etc.)?

To make sure we can continue to roll the project forward if our participant leaves in the middle, we decided to propose ourselves using a sign containing our story, which we can relocate at any given moment.

We carried an extra bottle of water for worst-case-scenario purposes of running out of ammunition (multiple squirt guns were even bought if one broke).

In order counteract the problem of putting paper targets all around campus, we used a combination of string, wood, and tape to mount each creature securely and noticeably.

To add extra effect, some of us decided to dress up in medieval-fantasy clothing to evoke the experience of a quest - as well as cement our concept into the minds of our spectators.

Thyrza, the to-be-rescued princess in our story. Bottles of water (Mana) for extra ammunition.

Micah and James getting ready at our starting location.

 On the day of execution we have encountered a number of obstacles in our design. It became very difficult to draw people into our endeavor for it didn't have public shock value except for the costumes (basically it didn't demand attention, it just simply asked for it). Our ability to attract people solely rested on the shoulders of our large whiteboard and the story (above) that was written on it. Our item was also very small and indistinct to being picked up, other than being referred to as the object our hero must wield in our adventure, it was your run-of-the-mill squirt gun.

Despite these setbacks and the very hot day, we were encountered by a person who read our entire story and motioned to complete his objectives! With his trusty crossbow in one hand and a supply of holy hand grenades being put in the other we ran through our destined quest in the matter of 10 minutes from start-to-finish. Destroying each target along the way, we finally reached the fountain (last area), rescued our princess and placed the weapon in the ending zone.

Princess Thyrza and the Hero of our story.

This concludes our third project, below are extra pictures.

Our sign. Correction: name typo.

An enemy our hero must defeat!

Another target closer to our final destination.

A defeated-looking flame creature after being water ballooned to death.

- Cam

The memories project

Here is the Memories project website

http://memoriesproject.blogspot.com/

This is a lame post but lets face it, the website says it all and I have a memorial to go to tomorrow.

Tic Tac Toe

Tic Tac Toe post

I really wanted to keep the spirit of the game in tact. I set out rules at the beginning of the assignment; I needed to keep it a pen and paper game and the rules needed to be easy to learn.

That was actually harder than I thought and for a while the game I was designing became very extravagant. I love games where the players work together and so it became a bridge building game, then a railway building game down a long gridded board where the game would randomly throw roadblocks at you.

I really wanted to stick to my original rules so I began to talk to Dad about it. He told me he and his brothers had come up with a game where the grid was larger and you only needed five in a row. It was I who came up with the idea that the edges were portals that lead to the opposite grid point on the other side of the board.

Other than the changes we made (8 by 8 grid) the game remained the same, and it became a strategy game where you could have fun but also kill a great deal of time.

Tic Tac Toe - The Resurrection

First thoughts on what to change

      Originally when I started out I thought I wanted to change the game space (aka the 3 x 3 board) because of how it limits strategy to get to the win state.  I also thought I would change from drawing 'x's and 'o's to something else.  I considered keeping being able to play with a mere pen and paper but I ended up going with a deviation from that as well.

Testing first game

This first game I developed deviated from Tic Tac Toe in the following ways:  different board, change from 'x's and 'o's, different win state.

    I ended up testing out a game that started with a board like this

Basically, the board starts out as pictured above and then a player has to either:

put a piece on an open circle

or move a piece on a circle to a circle (within a one circle radius).