Patch Wednesday #4: Where did Threes come from? A History Example

This is my fourth Patch Wednesday post where I discuss a question about video games that I think is unanswered, unexplored, or simply not posed yet. I will propose my own tentative ideas, and invite comments. 

The header sounds a bit like Ash Wednesday, so we can reaffirm our faith in the idea of examining video games, but Patch Wednesday to mark the sometimes ragtag and improvised character of video game studies.

threes

Where did Threes come from? The currently massively popular puzzle game Threes is seen as the victim of a large number of clones, particularly 2048. To prove their point, the developers have posted a long article explaining their design process.

At the same time, though 2048 is in many ways similar to Threes, some people also whisper that they think 2048 is the better game, because it is simpler (always doubling 2, 4, 8 rather than the 1+2=3 merging of Threes). It certainly is more intuitive to a programming mind.

Life is not fair, of course, and it seems a shame that someone can borrow from the game that someone else developed and through a minor change reap the seeds of the iterative design process of someone else. But you cannot copyright game ideas, only their expression.

triple town

Regardless, where does Threes come from? As a headline, the game contains two particular and rare mechanics: merging (the combination of objects to form higher-level objects) and slide-to-combine (pushing the entire screen to one side at a time, combining objects that are pushed into each other).

1) Merging

The merging mechanic does at this time seem to be inspired by Triple Town, where merging is reminiscent of match-three games. Yet where regular match-three matches lead to clearing the objects matched, Triple Town matches always creates a new higher-level object.

But where does this merging mechanic come from? Dan Cook, triple town developer stated that it was inspired by the idea of sets in card games as well as by crafting systems.

Quick research and the twittersphere proposed a few sources for merging:

  • Money Puzzle ExchangerThe king in Checkers – but this is not what I meant, since the stacking of two pieces is just a convenient way to signal a special piece, rather than an element of the gameplay. So merging is to be understood in a gameplay-sense.
  • Combining stones in Mancala – again, I had to realize that this was not what I meant, and had to narrow down the concept of merging: merging should be unidirectional, as in the player being unable to take apart the merged object.
  • Dan Cook’s suggestion of sets in card game was also not what I meant by merging, since sets are (generally) immediately removed from a game.
  • A similar objection applies to the suggestion that melds in Gin Rummy are a type of merging, since melds do not become separate entities.
  • Aaron Isaksen reminded be that he had shown me his chip-merging game Chip Chain game (2012).
  • A promising candidate for a first merging-game is Money Puzzle Exchanger (1997) where you can combine yen coins into higher denominations.
  • Dan Cook also suggested that the powerups in Bejeweled 2 (2004) are actually a type of merging. We may not think of it as merging because the default response to a match (three) is for the tiles to disappear. On the other hand, high-level match-three playing is quite similar to Triple Town in the requirement for planning the location of the generated powerups.
  • A non-puzzle example is the Archon in StarCraft (1998), created from two high templars.
  • And crafting, of course, but is it the same, or is it too much about managing inventory items and too little about what’s on the screen? If it is the same, then we may have to dive into the history of D&D (Jon Peterson’s Playing at the World would be a place to start.)
  • (Winner) But then I was pointed to the 1996 Mouja, which also features merging of coins. As far as I can tell this is the first puzzle game to use merging, but on the other hand this also seems unlikely, given how simple a mechanic merging is.
  • Darwin's DilemmaNew winner (thanks to Marc Majcher): the 1990 Darwin’s Dilemma.
  • For analog games, Cassino (ca. 1797) is a candidate, given the focus on building card stacks that act as one card.

I am sure I have missed something here (let me know). Until I came upon Cassino (which I played as a child), I was entertaining the theory that merging is simpler to do in digital form, and therefore was rare in analog games, but this theory is probably wrong.

2) Slide to combine

(Winner) TDBTPlay07[1]his was easy: I immediately recognized the slide to combine control of Denki Blocks (2001). In Denki Blocks, objects don’t merge to occupy a shared space, but rather become stuck to each other.

Is there an earlier one?

What we’ve learned

The “first game to x” is not be as simple as it sounds. In this case, the concept of merging had to be defined more clearly before I could start tracing it. Slide to combine only had one obvious candidate.

Finding the “first” is very hard, since you can never prove your argument, only hope not to be disproved.

Note that the Threes developers have (as far as I know) not mentioned any of the games I have cited as sources for merging and sliding. I think some of this is due to a particular mechanic simply being “in the air”, and some of it may be parallel invention. In many cases, we will never know.

Games are made out of bits of other games, people!

Thanks

To Eric Zimmerman, Frank Lantz, Dan Cook, Alexandre Houdent, Aaron Isaksen, Bruce Boyden, Mikkel Faurholm, Clay Branch, Matthijs Holter, Marc Majcher.

ToDiGRA Special Issue, Nordic DIGRA 2012

Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association has published Vol 1, No 2 (2014). This is a special Issue, with selected articles from Nordic DIGRA 2012.

Introduction: Exploring Nordic Game Research HTML PDF
Raine Koskimaa, Frans Mäyrä, Jaakko Suominen
Digital Materialities and Family Practices: The Gendered, Practical, Aesthetical and Technological Domestication of Play HTML PDF
Jessica Enevold
Player Types: A Meta-synthesis HTML PDF
Juho Hamari, Janne Tuunanen
Player-reported Impediments to Game-based Learning HTML PDF
J. Tuomas Harviainen, Timo Lainema, Eeli Saarinen
A Practical Guide to Using Digital Games as an Experiment Stimulus HTML PDF
Simon Järvelä, Inger Ekman, J. Matias Kivikangas, Niklas Ravaja
Should I stay or should I go? A Study of Pickup Groups in Left 4 Dead 2 HTML PDF
Jonas Linderoth, Staffan Björk, Camilla Olsson
In Defence of a Magic Circle: The Social, Mental and Cultural Boundaries of Play HTML PDF
Jaakko Stenros

Patch Wednesday #3: IQ Tests as Game Genre

This is my third Patch Wednesday post where I discuss a question about video games that I think is unanswered, unexplored, or simply not posed yet. I will propose my own tentative ideas, and invite comments. 

The header does sound a bit like Ash Wednesday, so we can reaffirm our faith in the idea of examining video games, but I also call it Patch Wednesday to mark the sometimes ragtag and improvised character of video game studies. It falls mostly on the day after Microsoft’s monthly Patch Tuesday. Time to patch things up and start again.

I think it by now is well understood that players approach a new game on the basis of their previous game (and other) experiences – hence the success of casual games that can be approached by a new audience. And we understand that players during a game will expand their skill set gradually (what I call repertoire in Half-real).

OK, but can we extend this outside regular game-play?

I thought of this when last year, Richard Bartle posted this brain teaser from the “Daily Brain Games” calendar:

ooo2

What is the right answer? Bartle proposed the following:

  • Fish Only one with fins. Only one without lungs.
  • Rat Only one with fur. Only one that has babies. Only one that carries the Black Death. Only one that Pied Piper can charm.
  • Snake Only one that sheds its skin. Only one able to eat something bigger than its head. Only one Indiana Jones is scared of.
  • Frog Only one without a tail. Only one to undergo metamorphosis. Only one that can jump.
  • Hen Only one with feathers. Only one with a beak. Only one that can’t live in water. Only one that’s only female.

The calendar wants us to answer rat, because it is a mammal. I have posed this riddle to several people who can instantly identify the correct answer, while I struggled to choose between all the possible explanations I could come up with. I couldn’t figure out why at first, but I suspect that we can identify a number of genre conventions that govern how you are meant to approach such puzzles. For anything related to the natural world, I think there is a hierarchy where you are supposed to answer according to the first distinction applicable:

1) Natural / man-made
2) Fly / walk two legs / walk four legs / swim
3) Mammals / non-mammals
4) Nocturnal / diurnal
5) Cold-blooded / warm-blooded
… 23) Shed skin … 26) Extinction status … 48) Funny observations about the spelling … and so on.

So the trick is to approach a question like this not as logic, but as “what are the usual answers in this genre”.

IQ Tests and Probability

I find that the word and visual puzzles in IQ test often have a similar quality: it is easy to conjure up dozens of possible answers and explanations (like this one), but the test creators seem to believe that there really is one true answer. And again, it comes down to a set of genre conventions that have built over the years.

Another example concerns the kind of puzzles posed to show that humans have a poor grasp of probability or logic. I discussed the Tuesday boy problem some time ago, but let us take the simpler Boy or girl paradox.

  • Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?

If you are into probability puzzles, you assume that there is something particular to look out for in the phrasing of the question, and yes: you understand that the question concerns the likelihood that someone who has two children and more than zero boys, will have two boys. The correct answer is 1/3. (Because there are three boy/girl combinations with more than zero boys: boy/girl, girl/boy, boy/boy, and only one of these is boy/boy, so the answer is 1/3.)

If you are not into probability puzzles, you imagine a situation where you meet someone with one of their children, a boy, and you are asked about the likelihood that the other child is also a boy, so 1/2. This certainly isn’t the answer you are meant to give.

It is undoubtedly true that we often apply too-simple heuristics to problems like this, but it is also clear that Boy or Girl Paradox may be more of a test of whether we are into probability puzzles than of whether we intuitively understand probability.

Compare this to the Monty Hall problem, which does not seem to be based on genre knowledge, but actual questions of probability.

I don’t mean to suggest that everything is a game, only that IQ tests and some probability puzzles are too much like stale and ossified game genres to actually measure that they are meant to measure.

As for game studies, I think this shows how the tools that we have developed for game design and game play – these tools can become useful outside regular games.

Special Issue on Religion in Digital Games

The Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet has launched a special issue on Religion in Digital Games. Multiperspective and Interdisciplinary Approaches.

Table of Contents

Article

Complete Edition of “Religion in Digital Games” (Online – Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet) PDF
Simone Heidbrink (ed.), Tobias Knoll (ed.)

Let’s Talk Video Games! Introduction to the Special Issue on Religion in Digital Games PDF
Simone Heidbrink, Tobias Knoll

Theorizing Religion in Digital Games. Perspectives and Approaches PDF
Simone Heidbrink, Tobias Knoll, Jan Wysocki

Studying Religion in Digital Gaming. A Critical Review of an Emerging Field PDF
Gregory Price Grieve, Heidi A. Campbell

Developing a Framework for Understanding the Relationship Between Religion and Videogames PDF
Richard E. Ferdig

Locating the Locus of Study on “Religion” in Video Games PDF
J.D.F. Tuckett, David G. Robertson

Game Cultures as Sub-Creations. Case Studies on Religion & Digital Play PDF
Elke Hemminger

Maker’s Breath. Religion, Magic, and the ‘Godless’ World of BioWare’s Dragon Age II (2011) PDF
Kristin M.S. Bezio

‘The Lamb of Comstock’. Dystopia and Religion in Video Games PDF
Frank G. Bosman

Religion as Resource in Digital Games PDF
Ryan Clark Thames

‘When people pray, a god is born… This god is you!’ An Introduction to Religion and God in Digital Games PDF
Markus Wiemker, Jan Wysocki

The Lord is My Shepard. Confronting Religion in the Mass Effect Trilogy PDF
Joshua A. Irizarry, Ita T. Irizarry

Religion(s) in Videogames. Historical and Anthropological Observations PDF
Alessandro Testa

Socialization of Teenagers Playing The Sims. The Paradoxical Use of Video Games to Re-enchant Life PDF
Pascaline Lorentz

Fátima Postmortem PDF
Luís Lucas Pereira, Licínio Roque

The Mythic Scope of Journey. A Comparative Assessment Concerning the Spirit at Play and Cybernetic Shamanism PDF
Robert William Guyker

Review: „eGods. Faith versus fantasy in computer gaming“ PDF
Moritz Maurer

Patch Wednesday #2: Do Casual Games still Exist?

This is my second Patch Wednesday post where I discuss a question about video games that I think is unanswered, unexplored, or simply not posed yet. I will propose my own tentative ideas, and invite comments. 

The header does sound a bit like Ash Wednesday, so we can reaffirm our faith in the idea of examining video games, but I also call it Patch Wednesday to mark the sometimes ragtag and improvised character of video game studies. It falls mostly on the day after Microsoft’s monthly Patch Tuesday. Time to patch things up and start again.

Question #2: Do Casual Games still Exist?

A Casual RevolutionIt seems a long time ago, but I once wrote a book called A Casual Revolution (2009), where I talked about the expansion of the video game audience, and focused particularly on the downloadable casual games, the Nintendo Wii, and music games.

I had picked the most important platforms, genres, and distribution channels of the day. I knew that these things come and go, and they did, quickly. The Wii is all but gone, and the Wii U is doing poorly and not even built around motion controls, and Sony’s Move didn’t take off. Music games are all but dead. Downloadable casual games is not as important a channel as it used to be.

So do casual games still exist? Is it still an important category? Since publishing the book, I have liked to tell the big-picture story like this (some of this material was also published in the Korean translation):

The Standard Video Game Model

There was a period of time, roughly from 1980 to 2005, when we knew what video games were. Video games, we knew, followed a standard model: they were fairly involved activities that you had to spend hours and days to play; they were mostly sold in boxes; new games and game platforms were always promoted on technically better graphics; games were mostly targeted at young males. (We knew, of course, that video games were in actuality played by men and women, young and old, but most video games were still targeted at the traditional “gamer” demographic.)

This standard model fell apart around 2006. At that time, video games distributed online became a major factor; the industry woke up to the fact that women and adults are perfectly interested in playing video games; the most successful console of the generation, the Nintendo Wii, wasn’t even promoted on better graphics, but on a new easy-to-use interface; game developers began experimenting with games that could be played in shorter sessions.

When I originally wrote the book, these changes were most clearly visible in music games, the Nintendo Wii, and downloadable PC games. Since then, the casual revolution has continued. The trend is still towards new distribution models, a broader audience, and video games arriving in new shapes and sizes, only the revolution has moved on to new platforms. Much of today’s innovation is happening in games for cell phones where the selling point is rarely the latest graphics, but much more about style, about game designs that fit into the lives of players. Furthermore, games on social networks are showing new ways in which games can be integrated into our lives, allowing us to keep contact with distant friends, still playing through every busy day. Games find a way.

The Tally

To score my own efforts, the book was correct in seeing the casual revolution as an expansion of the audience, and as a series of design principles that made games available to people who would not otherwise play them. I was also correct in seeing it as a change that would continue to reshape the industry.

In retrospect, the book put too much emphasis on particular platforms (notice the controller on the cover), but it is hard to tell such a story in the abstract.

I also described five principles of casual design (this was inspired in part by conversations with many industry people):

  1. Positive fiction. Set in a situation you would actually want to be in.
  2. Usability. Easy to use.
  3. Interruptible and with low required time investment.
  4. Difficulty that can become high over time, but always with lenient punishment for failure.
  5. Juiciness. Excessive supportive feedback to the player.

Does this still hold? Time investment remains the most important barrier to play, and most of the principles hold, with significant footnotes for 1) and 4):

1) Positive fiction: Plants vs. Zombies showed that you can make a mass-audience game that is gross and violent, if the representation is sufficiently cute.

4) Punishment: with the recent popularity of Candy Crush, Canabalt, Super Hexagon or Flappy Bird, some of the casual-hardcore distinction seems to collapse. “Casual Games” were never just easy, even if they have sometimes been discussed as such. But the endless runner genre is hugely successful, even though it actually punishes players strongly for failing since you go back to the beginning. This is, in many games, just offset by an accumulation of powerups and resources.

What I failed to see here was the way in which high difficulty and punishment can actually lower the required time investment. Super Hexagon or Flappy Bird are so difficult that the required time investment becomes minuscule, and the individual game session is only a few seconds long.

Things also not predicted:

  1. That the Wii would fade out so quickly.
  2. That the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, though being delayed as predicted, would still be promoted on better graphics, and would sell well (at least initially).
  3. The popularity of smart phone and table gaming.

*

Ironically, the casual revolution in video games is making the term “casual games” less central that it may have been: the audience has become larger and more diverse, and the distribution channels are becoming less distinct. It used to be that the big-budget “hardcore” games could be found on consoles, and the small-budget “casual” games could be found the casual sites, but this is less clear-cut than it used to be, so where do some of recent hits even belong?

So this is the big picture: we used to know what video games were, and now we don’t. We remain in a space of uncertainty: video games can be so many more things than we thought they could, and they continue to change and confound our expectations.

There Once was a Game called Flappy Bird

Flappy Bird

I was talking to Yannick LeJacq a week ago as he was writing an article on The Unflappable Brilliance of Flappy Bird, about the surprise mobile hit of early 2014.

To my surprise, Flappy Bird received an inordinate amount of hate (which I will get to below), so this was one of the very few articles to show any kind of interest in what made the game popular.

My thoughts on the game, some of which also made it into the article:

  • Flappy Bird is so simple that it appears ironic. For a modern game, we expect upgradesachievements, variation in the game, score increments larger than 1, forgiving collision. And none of those are present in the game.
  • Perhaps this was intentional from the designer, perhaps not. Certainly, to play Flappy Bird is to engage in a bit of irony, marveling at all of the things that we expect, but which are missing.
  • We tend to hope that we will find the perfect game; that there is some formula for creating the best, most addictive game possible. And whenever we have a new hit, those hopes get projected onto it. In recent times, the perfect game has been thought to be games like World of WarcraftFarmVilleCandy Crush. And then another game comes along. Charles Pratt and Tadhg Kelly have made similar points. But I think it goes further: people play Flappy Bird because it flies in the face of what every game designer knows at this point. Not because players care the least about what game designers or theorists like myself think, but because the shared conventional wisdom of How You Shall Design Your Game is making games similar, and players know a breath of fresh air when they see it.
  • The game is hard, but hard is casual: the fact that you fail every few seconds means that the time commitment dwindles down to seconds. (Super Hexagon being another recent example.)
  • Like Qwop, Flappy Bird was a sleeper hit. Very challenging games have a particular snowball effect, where they undergo a phase change from being a challenging game, to being a game where we collectively can marvel at how challenging and unfair it is. (And hence not feel bad about failing.)
  • Naturally, the simplicity is a feature. As I say in The Art of Failure, “This is what games do: they promise us that we can repair a personal inadequacy – an inadequacy that they create in us in the first place.” In Flappy Bird we very quickly learn how adequate we are, but the game is so simple that we also immediately know how to escape that inadequacy (flap sooner or later).

The backlash and the removal

And then the developer removed the game on Sunday February 9th.

Leading up to his, the Vietnamese developer had received a considerable amount of hate, the high point possibly being the claim that Flappy Bird Is Making $50,000 A Day Off Ripped Art mostly because the pipes look like Mario pipes. This seemed to start a meme that somehow this game was in legal dire straits both for making green pipes and because other flap-the-wings-and-avoid-obstacles games already existed. Some sites gloated at the removal and suggested that it could have been caused by legal challenges. All of this is nonsense, of course. In my limited legal understanding, there is nothing copyrightable about green pipes, and nothing copyrightable about a core game mechanic. Flappy Bird is among the least guilty games in terms of cloning and borrowing graphics. Also remember that this was the game that no one expected to see.

Some other quotes:

  • “as a game, the tap-to-fly-between-the-pipes gameplay is almost insultingly simple and uninteresting” (source).
  • More thoughtful was Ian Bogost’s article. “Flappy Bird is a game that accepts that it is stupid to be a game.” (Source). Ian shares the feeling that there is something excessive about the game, and that this provides a certain enjoyment.
  • But don’t get me started on comments.

The Backlash Backlash

All of this is very depressing. For reasons hard to fathom, a game by a small developer in Vietnam receives huge amounts of not-very-well-thought-through vitriol for making a game that confounds our expectations.

Get a grip everybody! The point is to be able to understand why people might be playing something that you are not naturally gravitating towards. If you want to be cognizant about games, your task is to understand why,  not just shout that “this game is stupid”.

And [all] journalists should try calling a legal expert before they point their fingers. And not to fan the flames. Sigh. Try to find that inner curiosity.

 

PS. Robert Yang has another critical look at the whole affair.

PPS. And just after I posted this, I see that Keith Stuart has posted an article featuring Bennett Foddy.

PPPS. And here is an interview with Dong Nguyen himself, where he says that he took the game down because it was too addictive – which differs from the motivations that everybody else ascribed the game’s removal to.

Well Played vol 3, number 1

New issue of Well Played.

Assassin’s Creed III: The Complete Unofficial Guide, a Teacher’s Limited Edition
Wade Berger, Patrick Staley

Fiasco and Failure: Uncovering Hidden Rules in a Story Game
Sean C. Duncan

Ninja Gaiden Black and the Tutorial-Less Tutorial
Jason Mathias

Interaction Images promote Character Identification in Heavy Rain
Michael Nixon, Jim Bizzocchi

Replaying the remnants in Mark of the Ninja
Pierre-Marc Côté

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors: Values of Digital Objects in FarmVille2
Jane Gruning

Ascension: a Case Study in Deckbuilding Games
Andy Nealen