Innovation... I think...

Caffeine, it would appear, has served as my muse. I have an idea I'd like to explore in depth in this project.

So, I'm interested in games. This should not be surprising, given that I'm a geek, a member of the Clemson Gaming Guild, and a member of the Serious Games Colloquium. I began gaming very young in life, and, by my best guess, have been gaming for about 23 years. Board games, video games, role-playing games, simulations, MMORPGs... I've played them all. I've always been interested in the stories games portray, and how that narrative shapes our perceptions of reality, and vice versa.

It occurred to me this afternoon (or morning... I'm not really sure) that there are very few games which are not adversarial. That is, 99% of the time, a game has a clear goal to achieve, a foe to defeat, or a storyline to complete. Objectives line the road most games travel, and these objectives effect the user's experience. I think it was Return to Castle Wolfenstein which explained this best. At the outset, the game asked the player what his ideal game experience would be. The options included "Challenging, like climbing a mountain," as well as, "Relatively simple, like walking down a long wooded trail." Picturesque though these examples seem, they both embody the concept that there is a reason for engaging in this endeavour. People like to think they've achieved something, gained mastery over a medium, or pwned a miniboss like he was a frackin' n00b.

What about games that don't achieve this end? Open-ended games, like Endless Ocean or The Sims? These are popular games, but they have no adversarial components that I can see. You don't have to beat anything to enjoy crafting the life of your Sim Family, nor do you particularly have to find every single last fish in the ocean. The experience is what it is: a relaxing diversion. There are other examples, such as the various games discussed in the Serious Games colloquium.

What I'd like to do is study this concept of adversarial and non-adversarial gaming experiences. I'd like to determine if there is a difference in the overall game experience, and whether or not games that do not pose the user with a clear challenge to overcome are enjoyable experiences. If human nature is conflict-oriented, why do non-adversarial games have any appeal?

This is going to require a lot of research... better fire up the Wii and 360 for primary source material. Any ideas how I can find secondary sources?

Can't find a decent cup of chai in this state

First of all, I don't mean the milky instant chai you get at any coffee shop. In Afghanistan, the locals gave us this strong green tea, sweetened with real cane sugar. They squeezed sugar cane into the pot and brewed it into the tea. Delicious. I know you can make it in the states somehow, but I can't figure it out.



I'm a grad student at Clemson University, trying depserately to figure out what on earth the topic of a major project. No, not my thesis (though I'm still thinking about that one, as well). I'm trying to think of a manageable topic for a full-on Second Life presentation, and am a little stressed about the whole affair. Still, it's early yet, and I have confidence something will wind up coming to me, most likely while in an altered state of half-sleeping, half-hangover. After all, isn't that how Voltaire wrote Candide? Plus, there has to be a film aspect to it. No, not "watch a film and write a paper on it," or something like that. I have to compose a video presentation of this shindig. Figures that my brother (the artisitc and creative one of us) has a degree in film, and lives in Philly. Fie!



Anyway, I reckon I might could assemble some ideas I've been kicking around about serious gaming, but I'm still reaching. I guess something will come to me soon enough.