Marble Madness!!!

Try to find an example of a digital game which truly takes advantage of the traits of the medium, and could not be successfully implemented in a non-digital form. In particular, think about the traits of digital/computer games as listed by Crawford. Describe the game, and identify the core gameplay mechanic.

My game of choice is Marble Madness, by Atari games, released in 1984.

It’s a simple arcade game where we take control of a marble and complete a course of three dimensional labyrinths within a strict time limit. The three-quarter overhead view actually gives a sense of depth, and with all the shadow effects, it really gives a nice illusion of 3d space. The screen actually scrolls downwards, and reveals the level as the marble progresses down. There are various small enemies scattered through the levels, but the player's greatest challenge is actually the controlling of the marble throughout the levels itself, which feature many peculiar passages and obstacles. This controlling of the marble is essentially, the core mechanic of the game.

Responsiveness

The game can be played in one player or two player modes. The home console versions let you choose the difficulty levels. In terms of the game interface itself, the game does not have any action button, simply because the only action available is moving around the levels. Although the version I played was the Sega Genesis port, the original arcade version actually features a trackball as the controller, but I find the directional pads sort of work quite well also. But it is interesting how a trackball is featured in the arcades, as it reflects the affordance of the ball and thus enhances the sense of control of the marble in the game.

Automation of rules

The purpose of the game is to control the marble to reach the goal in the shortest period of time. A play time was set, and a timer starts to count down as soon as player takes control of the marble. Should the marble drops off the edges of the level, or breaks due to falling down to a lower level, or got eaten by the enemy, then the time it takes for the marble to respawn and to resume control is the penalty imposed to the player. Remaining time gets carried over, while game ends if player fails to reach the goal within the specified time.

Immediate interactivity

With every push of the button, there is this inertia which the marble carries, and it will pick up some speed if the player continues to direct it towards a certain direction, so interactivity comes out of trying to balance the flow of the marble to avoid dropping off the edges or the enemies.

Intelligent opponent

Although there are no real artificial intelligent opponents, the level design itself provokes enough challenge to the player. There are some a.i controlled opponents like this enemy marble that moves around the level and try to bump into the player.

Control over visibility of information

As mentioned, due to view the perspective of the game, the screen scrolls down, and thus only certain parts of the level is visible at one time. This unpredictability of what lies ahead is what makes the game interesting.

What is it about the core mechanic that makes the game truly a digital game?

I guess what makes this game truly digital is fact that the level design is quite difficult to implement physically. Although I would imagine somebody could come up with a Lego version of it, it's still kinda hard to implement the core mechanic of controlling the marble with all the inertias/ gravity, not to mention the mechanism to control it.

The thing about digital game is that computers can convert physical user input (through the game interface) into certain mathematical computations to simulate the effects of a rolling marble as it interacts with the environment, and represent these effects using pixelated graphics. The levels themselves are not static, they are dynamic, the computer using the same calculations, simulate the obstacles for the player to overcome, and automatically keep track of the rules, such as the time limit and penalties.

McDonalds : Fan(4) Tastic!

Using this game as an example, discuss whether it is possible for a game to be successful on two levels: both in terms of its goals as a game (creating meaningful play and engagement/flow), and as a serious game (achieving specific learning objectives, conveying a political message, or other non-entertainment objectives).

At first glance, the game seems promising. The tutorial at the beginning of the game was very effective in getting beginners to understand the mechanics of the game. For familiarity, the game even uses existing interface style used in other Sim games. But unlike the Sim games where you can neither lose or win the game, in McDonald’s game, there is a longer term goal of staying in business, or rather, not ending the game by getting bankrupt.

A few sessions into game play, I wasn’t expecting Sim City Mcdonalds’ Edition, or Pizza Tycoon or anything, but at least I expected a way so that I could survive the game and become a millionaire; Call me an amateur gamer, but there is no way I could ever beat this game, with or without corruption!

The game provides an illusion of interactivity in which through a series of both ethically and morally questionable decisions in each of the operational sectors (such as use of genetic modifications, deforestation, hormone injections, corruption etc), you can determine the performance of the business and keep it out of bankruptcy. There seems to be an illusion of flow as well, because as you grow your productions on one sector, you have to balance it with the other sectors by implementing whatever measures necessary to keep the business out of the red. However the truth is, no matter what the players do, the game will fall short on one or more of the production sectors, and the game becomes a sort of closed system with a single predetermined course of outcome.

So this game fails in both aspects: In terms of meaningful play, it offers too little interactivity/ options for people to be engaged in a play of roles and outcomes; no matter what you do, straight or corrupt, you still will end up bankrupt.

In terms of other non-entertainment objectives, it is not clear what the game is trying to teach the players: The over-simplification of what would be complex workings of the fast food industry, or how to maintain a legit business by using ethically questionable practices such as corruption?

The game however presented us an interesting depiction of the interrelation workings of the fast food industry, and helps us a mental model of how the business operates. But the skills and knowledge gained in playing the game is hard to relate to any practical skills in real world.

Mafia

Describe the social interactions which you observed during play. In what way did these interactions emerge from within the formal elements of the game?

Overall, the mafias did a great job in protecting themselves; by simply exploiting the voting mechanism of the game. The dynamics of voting is what makes this game engaging and fun, in which case people will actually put out a case of who the mafias are.

The opinion leaders usually get accused first as the mafia, since there is an assumed motivation to avoid accusations by accusing others. Villagers were careful to voice out their case, ensuring a safe level of mutual agreement on credible claims such as hearing voices coming from certain directions during the night killing spree. Certain externally derived social cues were also visible, for instance, at one stage people found it difficult to accuse someone whom everyone else thought would be harmless, especially some of the people in the group whom are thought to be quiet and shy.

Using Sutton-Smith's categorization of social play roles, discuss how the players' roles changed during the course of the game.

The flow was more or less as follows: Everyone Searches for some cues (usually sounds produced by the gestures during the night killing spree, assuming they were not cheating by peeping) to filter out the possible candidates, then everyone will evaluate the likelihood of themselves being accused as the killer. Players then seduce each other to accuse a candidate while protecting themselves, usually by teasing or harass others in order to ignite everyone, getting everyone agitated. Players can also play the role of savior by not voting those whom they think have been wrongly accused.

Suggest a modification to the game which will alter the social dynamics that emerge during play.

Perhaps a new rule could be implemented: what if the mafia doesn’t know each other? Then this may add another element of mechanics: which out of the two mafias survives and emerges as the winner. Each turn the game master may specify which mafia to wake up and kill villagers/ the other mafia. If one mafia has been eliminated, then the surviving mafia must kill everyone until left only two remaining villagers. This will change the social dynamics of the game a bit by introducing an element of competition between the mafias, by making them hunt each other.