... when it's September 12th.
Very interesting object lesson here and an instructional example of how games can be used for subtle forms of education.
Let's talk about it at the start of next class - please post comments here as to how it is play, how the central mechanic is constructed and how it might be made into a game. I'll single out the best submissions for discussion... this is how those participation grades get made.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
61 comments:
This, for the lack of a better term, simulated "play" seems to be a political statement to an extent. Its basic mechanic is shooting. Normally, having this mechanic alone can establish a game, but this particular case fails to become a game because it does not have a definitive objective or ending. You can shoot, not shoot, kill civilians, kill terrorists, or destroy buildings. It took me a long time to figure out that I could move to the right to reveal more of the town. It also occured to be that I couldn't shoot in short succession, and that even though I aim my missiles at terrorists, I end up hitting buildings or civilians just because of the lag time of releasing the bullet, the movement of the people, and the lack of accuracy of the missile. This, in itself, is the program maker's view of how "War" in the Middle East is. Too many civilians are getting killed for no cause, and the terrorists come back in double or triple numbers, and countless buildings are getting destroyed.
If this is to be made into a proper game, there must be a goal. For example, you must have to shoot down all the terrorists, or shoot but do not hit buildings of civilians. With a task at hand, then the game would have an ending, and a point. It is play because it allows you to do whatever you like within the technological restraints, and no prize or penalty will come of any course of action, and it can go on forever.
Hope that made sense!
-Joyce Leung(301005461)
Makes a lot of sense - for other posters, no need to go quite this long.
Thanks!
September 12 game mechanic is simple. As stated on the intro page, “You can shoot. Or not”. The shooting does not allow for rapid firing of missiles and has a time-lag which only allows you to fire after a time interval. The purpose of the game is meant for mass destruction (i.e. destroying buildings and taking human lives). Basically, the idea is if you’re going to shoot, you’ll take down everything with you.
September 12 brings about the political issue that war has no end. After playing the game in more detail, I noticed that after shooting the terrorists along with some civilians (the civilians happened to be very close to the terrorists during the blast), the victims who are also civilians mourn over the dead and then “transform” themselves into terrorists. The transformed terrorists double in army and thus the more you shoot, the more terrorists surface. In this sense, only more and more people are going to get hurt and in actuality, no one will win in the end.
To make September 12 into a game, a winner should take place in the game whether it be the civilians or the terrorists.
I also tried not shooting at all in the game. This resulted in a more favourable situation as no civilians were hurt and thus the number of terrorists did not increase.
Overall, I think using the God-seeing perspective is exceptionally smart because you can differentiate between all the “good” guys and the “bad” guys. Furthermore, you are given the power to retain and/or take lives as all the people are under your control.
Is it too long? >_<
Jessica Lam | 200094543 | jlamj@sfu.ca
I feel that “September 12th” is just another weak attempt at trying to cash in on the topic of terrorism, war, and anti-Americanism. Under the pretense of an educational game/simulation, it basically boils down to a biased and stereotypical view of current events.
During my time playing with a lot of time was spent observing. With the only mechanic being shoot, watching the simulation became my main focus.
Many games are possible out of this however, I found myself trying to do many different things with self-imposed rules. I tried only destroying buildings and not killing anyone, the simulation had no reaction to this except for the automatic rebuilding of structures over time. I also tried to kill the mourners, but the shooting timer effectively avoids this issue. Trying to kill dogs was also a short game I engaged in. Strangely, no one mourns for the killed “terrorists”. Interestingly, there seems to be a fixed minimum number of “terrorists” in the game. There are many more possibilities of creating games out of this simulation.
Tony Tsai
This is not a game, this is for child's play. This game is no different than giving a child a hammer and telling him to start hitting at whatever comes out of a pothole...It's a training system!!
This 'game' is not even educational in that aspect...at least the hammer game trains reflex...
The mechanics in 'september 12' is shooting...mindless shooting. To name the game after the day when the trade tower got blown up is just political propaganda...
Even though some people may say that it is just a game, to use a civilian city as an arena and by adding the sound effect of people crying when their home are struck down is sickening in my opinion.
To make it a proper game, I'd start by changing the title, change the scene, characters, and give them something to defend themselves with and give the player something to loose!
Sept 12 is play because it is mindless killing and destruction. Just click and watch things go boom.
At the moment it isn't a game because its pointless, but it isn't far from becoming one. The simulation is only missing a form of conflict or goal in the game. There is already a form of difficulty in the game (ie. countdown after shooting, civilians become terrorists when nearby civilians are killed).
But I do see the what this game is trying to teach. In the beginning there were only a few terrorists, and as the player I tried to eliminate them. Little did I know was that by killing one terrorist I end up causing destruction through the land, and killing innocent people. And because innocent people die by my hands, friends of those innocents become terrorists to retaliate what I do. So its best to stop while you're ahead I guess. There really isn't a win or lose in this game :) I guess this reflects whats going on quite accurately...
Mechanic: shooting, constructed through delayed, large explosion-radius missiles.
Why is this not a game?
Well I actually would like to stab at arguing otherwise. This is not a game in the fact that it has no definitive competition or ending. However, it's arguable that there are elements of September 12'th that bring it very close to, maybe over, the line between play and games. I say this because we defined play as an action or series of actions that we preform for fun with no particular structure, reason, or meaning other than fun as the ultimate objective. I realize that rather than including everything into the "game" category that doesn't fit this description is too ambiguous, but hear me out first.
(Example to build argument on. Skip to next paragraph if you don't wanna read it)
If someone was "shooting hoops", they are playing basketball. They aren't playing a GAME of basketball, but they are playing a measure of the game. Their constraints are that accomplishment in this setting is to score a shot in the hoop. The goal is to improve skill. This differs from simply.. kicking the ball, or throwing it around. This goal is a personal one however, and since there is no context for it outside of the user, cannot constitute the makings of a game. But neither is it simply play for fun, as it has an objective.
The apparent objective in September 12'th is understanding of a concept, and this educational (although crudely and BLUNTLY applied) objective is achieved in the gamespace. Actions preformed within the gamespace are confined by the ideals of the designer. The programmer set standards, such as "kill a civilian and the nearest civilian will transform into a terrorist", or "There will be a slight delay between missiles."
Finally, shooting and aiming consist of what we are allowed to do. Because our actions are limited, this is not simply play. It is play within the confines of the gamespace. And the game preforms the golden triangle. We see a terrorist, we aim and click, and (as an example) a civilian dies instead. The game then makes more terrorists as a reaction. There are many great games, such as Risk, where no score is kept, the game ends only when 1 person remains. However, Risk has a solid objective.
Quantifiable results:
So on the "for game" side we have:
Some rules
A "subtle" goal of concept learning
Limitations, constraints & primitive "rules"
On the "play" side we have:
No definable objective(s)
No win/lose
No competition
How can this be made in to a game?
Since, from how I interpreted September 12'th, is close to being a game as is, simply adding a score counter, maybe + points for T kills and - points for C kills, or mission objectives.
Hope I'm on the right track!:
I wrote this based on my understanding of the difference between Play and Games. If anyone feels I was wrong, feel free to point out where I deviated from the learnings.
Just my 2cp! :D
The mechanic of the game is shooting. I guess this is play because there is no goal and no set number of people. IMO I did not find it enjoyable or unpredictable. The outcomes are predictable after the first or second shot where the people who lost somebody who wasn't a terrorist turned into terrorist (losing somebody who was civilian or innocent). If you leave them alone the terrorist revert back to civilians. I think this implies that the US invasion angers the civilians therefore they turn into terrorist but if left alone they don't have a reason to cause problems; which makes sense but in reality there is more to it than just that - like oil... Lastly, there isn't really any rules.
To apply the triangle mechanic on this game we have:
Cognition: see the terrorist
Player: Fires rocket
GameResponse: explosion animatino and sound, people die and buildings collapse.
Ways to make this into a game with its shoot mechanic is if there were goals and rules. Perhaps putting in rules such as kill only terrorist without killing civilians otherwise you lose and that would be the immediate consequence (limitations) OR have a split screen with the other screen containing civilians of the country who is doing the shooting and have the terrorist do damage there for every innocent person killed on the middle east side. The conflict would be the terrorists are the bad guys, so kill them before they cause anymore trouble OR to kill the right people without intruding on the lives of innocent civilians.
It seems all the posters before me have already discussed the mechanics of the game so I will just share my personal experience of it.
After learning how the simulation worked, I started to create my own goals. First by trying to make all the people turn into terrorists and then later leaving the game alone so that all the people would turn into civilians.
I guess this is an example of turning play into a game.
Before the game actually having player's action, there are some comments on the program itself. It stated, this is not a game, and there is no winning or loosing, you can shoot or not...etc. From what I am experiencing from, the game mechanic is to move the mouse and click to "shoot". When I first start to play it, I thought it was only to shoot the rocket and kill the people (either civilians or terrorists) and destroy the building, so I tried to kill and destroy everything to see what will happen after. And I figured, that the civilans u kill will turn the other civilans into terrorists, and the buildings you destory will rebuild in a certain time and that makes this no goals, so I say this is only a play not a game. However, if there is timer, or scoreboard or even a rule, then this will becomes a game. For example, I can ask player to kill this many civilians in order to win or ask player to kill only the terriorsts or you will loose, something like that. How this game can be used for subtle forms of education? Well, it teaches us that terrorists aren't just exist, they appears because the weapons(rockets, nuclear bombs) destroy their hometown and/or killed their family, or I will say when war occurs. However, if you leave them along, and give them peace,then there will be no terrorists anymore.
As others have noted, September 12th falls short of being a game due to lack of a goal (or conflict). It certainly has the potential to be a game: there are rules, there’s structure, and there’s a magic circle (the artificial space contained within the Flash file as well as the psychological reality the player may become immersed in). If a player chooses to attempt to kill the terrorists littered throughout the space, buildings are destroyed and citizens are killed in the process. Seeing their fellows fall, the citizens become terrorists themselves. If the goal were to obliterate terrorism – a goal I’ve devised for myself in order to give September 12th a purpose, e.g. make it a game in my mind – I’d argue that to win the player would do nothing.
In terms of its educational value, the almost-game presents a clear message that others have already noted: revenge breeds terrorism. Beyond that, I wonder what effect September 12th could have or has had on people, particularly those intimately affected by the events of 9/11. Could it act or has it acted as a cathartic practice for people suffering post-9/11? Violent games have been popularly labeled as a cause of violent behaviors and acts. Perhaps, through its subtle teachings amidst outright violence, September 12th offers an important new role for violent games.
I agreed with all the postings so far. I think lacking goals and rules are a huge factor when a game is not a game. September 12 is a game that hasn't been fully developed. There are some parts that are missing to make it a game.
Lily Hou (200098636)
September 12th, as others have noted, is probably a good example of play verging on a game. There are many elements that make us believe it is play, but it is difficult to discern whether the goal is fun or not. I’m not even sure I would consider it play, because of the way it is set up. There are obvious ideas for play, such as firing the missiles and seeing the results, but on the flip side, others may not enjoy such “play”. I think this action based flash is probably only definable by those who choose to interact and utilize the game for what they consider “fun”. Personally I found it boring and oversimplified.
As noted above, the mechanic is shooting the missiles and “attempting” to kill the terrorists. Generally the play is accomplished in this manner, and there is justifiable feedback through the death of everything within the blast radius, and the result being more terrorists. This is where I feel it verges on a game as it maintains a triangle of interaction, where we see terrorists, we fire missiles, and we see the results. A game could be made of this, but it would have to have some positive reinforcement first. Most games allow the user a chance at winning, generally this is the allure, to be the winner. However in its current state, there seems to be no way of “winning” (probably the political message), within the play area defined by the city.
I had some other comments about Slamdance and Super Columbine Massacre RPG but I think this is long enough as is. (though they should be considered in relativity)
Mike
I would not consider "September 12th" a game, but an interactive simulation of a system. It is missing rules and is too interpretive - you are give the choice to shoot or not, and that's about it. Whatever you do with that basic shoot mechanic affects the simulation, but does not 'earn' you anything according to the game because there are no rules about which how to play. It is more like play than a game, like making a house of cards and then throwing a card at it. (too subjective for a game)
I forgot to include my name and email in my previous post.
Karl Schmidt
karls@sfu.ca
September 12, as its name suggests, is about the act upon terrorists and massacre etc. Anyways, directions are illustrated at the beginning, starting the disclaimers about how its not a game blah blah.. blah… it’s a form of play since it allows users to interact with it for as long as the user still find it interesting. I also see it as being a simulation of the increment of terrorist, how it’s about revenge. Its mechanics of this play can be applied into the basic mechanics of a typical shooting game. 1- Shoot, 2- Explode (feedback) play/ game continues, and you look for next target. Such play I would consider it already being 80% game like, all it requires is a system of rules. Let say you are suppose to eliminate all terrorists, without killing the civilians. Each mis-kill, cuts down on players life points etc. The gaming experience maybe increased though developing more than one levels, perhaps each with characters increasing in speed.
Kevin Fan (301005421)
I think most of the points I want to say had been said.
It is not really a game, it is a simulation. It also involves in political. To start a war or not.
On the other hand, the player become a god like figure or whatever. You have the power to decide rather or not you want to do some total annihilation or not. Good or Evil.
Justin Lee (200118030)
At first, I thought this is some kind of online game with people running around at the back. Until the instruction screen pops up, I read the instruction and realized “this is [actually] not a game”. I was immersed by the graphic (target circle) and interface of this ‘game’ because after clicking ‘continue’, I thought I am about to play some ‘game’ here. This is just a simple some sort of game, all the player has to do is to shoot. The mechanics of this game are targeting and shooting. However, I cannot tell rather I am a terrorist in this game or a civilian, and there is nothing leading me to play or move on in September 12th. There are no win or lose in this game, so I do not see any purpose in “September 12th”.
In additional, this is definitely not an educational game because it is saying about the terrorists are killing the civilians, and I do not see any purpose of this game. It was probably interesting and fun at first, but then I do not know when this game going to end or it will never end (keep shooting). This game involves probably the form of fun and immersion since September 12th is so interactive with the user.
Ulrike Lam
D101
This is play because there are no rules, only a few parameters. The central mechanic is that you can click on things to blow them up, but you have to wait a couple seconds before clicking again, and when you kill civilians, more terrorists arise. Other than those guides, the rest of it is up to you. You can kill terrorists, civilians, blow up buildings or just let everything be. This could be turned into game easily though. If there is an established goal then the user could try to achieve that, and in turn, be playing a game. But if this was turned into a game, it would lose the meaning behind it. Right off the bat, it was specified that there are no winners or losers, it’s just senseless destruction and killing which reminded me of what’s actually happening today in our world.
Darian
Most of the people have already talked about the game mechanic, which is shotting bascially. From my personal opinion about this "play" is that it is time killer! I actually spent some time actually "playing" with this "play". I did not realize that the shooting area is bigger than it seems, I could move to either right or left to see more of the town. And I also realized as I played on, that the destructed buildings after a certain period of time, they will be reconstructed unless I bomb them again. Just before I started to feel bored, I found out that more terriorists appeared than the civilians for some reasons. Then I realized that whenever I kill some of the civilians, some other might come and cry beside the dead civilians and then they will become terriorists. Also during the civilian transforming into terriorist, a sound effect will play indicating the transformation. Personally I think it's somehow a game instead "only" a play. Although it is true that it has no purpose, no ending, no beginning, no other mechanics, and it goes on forever. There are still some happenings in it that makes us to spend some time to find things out and kill some time with it. Also some people even made up their little rules for themselves in the play. For myself, I had a little rule as well that is I tried to kill only the terriorist but not the civilians. I found it actually not easy because the more innocent ones I kill, the more terriorists appear. Beside those, the aiming accuracy and lab time of releasing the next bomb somehow become a thing for us to figure out what is better to do to achieve the goal that we set up for ourselves. Mine was simply to destroy all the white-heads (the terrorists).
Ruby Chang | rubyc@sfu.ca
I find this to be a pretty sensible simulation. Sure, the only mechanic is launching missiles on people and for everyone who think terrorism is a bad thing, they would likely try to kill off the terrorists. Consequently, the mourners of carelessly killed civilians would want revenge and become terrorists, hense the spawning of terrorists. Another good simulation in this game is how missiles are used. You may have the ability to aim and shoot your missiles but people and animals move around randomly so it's extremely difficult to get a "clean shot" containing only terrorists. This game supports the idea that war is not the best solution to terrorism as each missile launched will cause more vengeance and hence more terrorism. The player can actually see civilians who mourn for other fallen civilians stand up in rage and transform into a terrorist (including children who looks more like they grew up into terrorists after crying).
Because this interactive application lacks objective, there is no winning or losing but the players may be motivated to do something with the environment they are presented with according to their morals or according to their sense of humour. Since there is no winning or losing condition and the players are free to shoot anywhere they wish with the missile launcher they're provided with, this application is designed more for the purpose of play than the creation of a game.
Carmen Chow
Like many others before me have said, the main mechanic of this game is shooting.
September 12 lack of goals, rules, and competition are multiple reasons why i define this as play. However, at the same time i also can't tell if this is really play due to reasonings such as if this fun or not. Neverending destruction which i dont think many people would even consider as fun.
To make this into a game i would have to suggest that there be some sort of task that the user might have to do, instead of the neverending killing. Maybe for example they could set up some sort of level system and after a certain amount of terrorist killed the player would move onto the next level. Of course it would need to have a time based trial of some sort to pass the level. Or maybe the player might have an amount of lives in which he is vulnerable to the terrorists etc.
Charles Cheung
The "September 12" sounds like a very exciting name that would interest me, however, I did not find it as a game. There is no goal, lack of competition and most important is the FUN part. The graphic at first glace would trigger me to define something unpredictable would happen in any second but it was a bit of disappointing when played a while. Since there is no winning or losing, I lost track to keep playing the game. I don't find this interacting enough by just shooting with no end result.
Charmaine Chan
200122443
The central mechanic is the point and click where you click on a spot and a second later a missle blows up the area. Buildings along with the people in the area get killed.
You could turn sept 12 into a game by adding a timer to see how many buidings/people you can kill. Another way to turn it into a game is to have the objective of turning all the blue guys into the guys wearing the white hoods or vise versa.
Another game would be to have a hidden guy walking around and you have to shoot him. Kind of like a where is waldo type. Another game can be a reverse of the current game mechanic where the computer controls the missles and you control a guy or a bunch of guys trying to avoid the missles for a period of time.
Another game you could control one guy and try to reach a specific building trying not to get hit with a missle.
Lastly there a game could be made by you, the shooter, try to shoot a specific type of guy but your shots affect an area so the objective would be to kill all the bad guys while having the least amount of casualties.
Actually I have another one. Try to destroy all the buildings while killing the least amount of people or destroy all the buildings before the people make new ones.
Tim Chow
301002077
The game mechanic here is just shooting things, and seeing the results. I would definitely call this a game. If you say this isn't a game then you mind as well say the Sims isn't a game as well. Not all games have to have crystal clear objectives. I found myself making my own objectives as I played. I noticed that civilians turned into "terrorists" as people were killed. So I tried to see how many civilians I could convert to terrorists. I also made my own objective with the buildings where I tried to see how many I could destroy. I noticed however the buildings repair themselves, so that turned out harder then I thought.
None the less I do believe this is a game, there is a pretty solid mechanic which allows users to explore and do what they want in the environment. It allows people to be creative and make their own objective. Nothing wrong with that!
- Stephen Ramsay
301000846
Angela Chan (301001005)
amchan@sfu.ca
The central mechanics of “September 12th” is shooting. The players simply press their mouse to shoot, and then, they receive the feedback which is the explosion.
I do not consider it as a game because there is no objective. The players can shoot, or not shoot the terrorists. For me, I think “September 12th” is a play or a training area which allows the players to practice shooting. They have no gain or lose in there.
“September 12th” can be a game if it includes an objective (for example, to kill the terrorists within the time limit) and some rules (for example, deduct points when a civilian got killed). It will be more interesting when there is a scoreboard. Then, the players will be more addictive to the game while they are competing with the top scorers.
The game mechanic here is very simple to follow. There's nothing more then click to shoot and watch the end result. Some in the previous post have brought up the point that September 12 is not a game because of its lack of objective. It is simply a simulation of a fact that's actually happening somewhere in the world. This may be educational. But the question is whether or not this is a possitive education for the people who play this game. Because of the simplicity of this game design, I suppose this is an attempt for educating young ages. I wonder if the designer(s) of this game have ever thought about how kids would think when they are observing the relationship between the distruction they make and the reaction of other characters in the game. However, would this game be an example of possitive education if the young participants actaully think it is fun playing the game (killing in the game?) afterall.
Weili Tsai
200117407
I'll attempt to write my views on September 12th without reading the above discussion in an attempt to remain unbiased by the opinions of others (though I'll likely repeat a few points without knowing it)
Using this simulation as an example of subtle education in games is somewhat interesting. What does the user learn from this? That bombing civilians will automatically produce more terrorists? That the people will rebuild exactly what it was they lost? That over time, the civilian population will regrow, but nothing will change in terms of their behaviour towards destructive events? I suppose it's some form of education, but one that is very stereotypical and politically-based. Interesting nonetheless.
As far as the central mechanic is concerned, the user sees something he wants to bomb, he clicks the button on that area to bomb it, and the game responds by updating the graphics, killing terrorists or civilians, and starting the timer. As I was playing the simulation, I hoped there would some sort of game factor. I tried, as many others did, to bomb a group of people, and bomb the mourners.. but found the timer limited this behaviour. I tried bombing the buildings, but found they offered little in the way of satisfying feedback. I tried waiting and watching at the beginning of the simulation, and after an extended period of bombings, to see the population normalize after the attacks.
It could easily be made into a simple game in a few ways:
1. Convert all the civilians into terrorists
2. Bomb all the buildings so none are left standing at a given time
3. Kill all the terrorists and leave the civilians
4. Introduce a "where's waldo" character.. a sort of terrorist boss, and when killed, the game responds in unexpected ways (terrorists become civilians once again / the terrorists gain strength and start destroying their own city / outside groups come in and try to create a democracy in the vacuum of leadership......)
Robert White
rwhite@sfu.ca | 200111767
This simulation is trying to show how war affects people.
Game Mechanic: moving the mouse and clicking to shoot.
How it is play:
Shooting missiles to an targeted area and destroy everything. No rules to what to destroy or accomplish. Objective is just clicking the mouse and seeing the things demonlished. If a civilian is killed, the family members will turn into terrists. Due to the delay of the firing of missiles, it's hard to aim and control what to kill.
To Make Into Game:
1.) We need to have rules, structure, conflict and a way to resolve it.
2.) We need to have an introduction and an ending so that the player knows what is going on and understand the goal that needed to be accomplish.
3.) We need to make this fun, which we can apply the 14 forms of fun we discussed in lectures. Adding scores, timer, more graphics, more sounds effects, more realistic scenes, different weapons, etc.
4.) As the producer of this game, We need to have a main mission. What is the game going to make the player feel. Is this game competitive against other similar games. What makes this game different from them. What makes this game better than those similar games.
Lesson to be learned:
War is a scarly thing. People often die for no reason. Many things are hard to control (aiming and shooting with the delay while people running around). Even we try to mininize the casualties of war, but it's something unavoidable. More people will get killed by those who lost their love ones. A loop of never ending
killing spree caused by the first attack.
Raymond Wong
The theme of September 12th is very straightforward. It shows how war can repeat itself over and over again like an endless loop. It tells us violence cannot solve conflicts that are created by violence.
There is only one mechanic in the “game”. It is to shot or not as stated in the instruction. If civilians die in a bombing they will become terrorists. When I played this “game”, I automatically created a rule and tried to avoid bombing the civilians so I only killed the terrorist but I found it impossible to do so.
To make this “game”, into a game is simple. Simply gives it a situation to win or lose so player has a goal to play the game. Players may have to kill 100 terrorists within a time limit to advance into the next level or to win. They will lose when they time is up before they kill 100 terrorists. However, I think making September 12th into a game will destroy its theme and purpose of the original application.
it is a play not a game, cuz there is no win or loose and it never ends.
To play, you either shoot or not shoot. You dont know how many people died, and they can rebuilt the houses that you shoot down. The mechanic here is you shoot or not shoot by moving the mouse and click.
To make it into a game, we need to know how to win, and to know how to win we need some rules for the game. Also make it little harder so this game need some skills to compelete.
September 12 is not a game because it lacks vital elements for it to be defined as a game. Firstly September 12 lacks a goal or objective for which a player can work towards completing. Additionally September 12 lacks the structure present in most games making it seem very meaningless.
September 12 is defined as play because although it is not a game it may seem enjoyable depending on a person’s objective point of view.
However September 12 does contain various aspects of games such that it has the primary mechanic of shooting. Additionally it also completes the triangle of interaction by having the player observing the simulated city, react to it by shooting which results in either people dieing, buildings being destroyed or people becoming terrorists.
Because September 12 has several aspects relating it to a game it could be made into a game by giving a player an objective such as to kill a certain number of terrorists without killing a given number of citizens.
~Suen Ting (301009053)
September 12 appears on the surface as mindless fun. There is no clear rule set, no goal, nor anything that clearly displays a sense of purpose or competition a game requires. Yet people look at the title and the language used in the game and quickly assume this has some political nature to it or a reason of it been created. However by doing so doesn’t that make this a game? In the eyes of the people of the post 9/11 tragedy this should be considered a game. It has a purpose though the medium used to convey this message is crude; to show how easily life’s can be taken away by an impersonal missile, be it a terrorist or civilian. Where as had we had no knowledge of real terrorism this would have been mindless fun, no matter how cruel blowing people up would be.
On the game design perspective this has a striking resemblance to a game mechanic alpha; all it contains is one game mechanic “shooting” but no real reason why. All would need to do to make this a real game would be to have a purpose for example to kill all the civilians or terrorist. Then add a scoring system to promote competition.
September 12's game mechanic is to shoot.
It is not a game because it does not have an objective and as many others has said is more of a simulation. This can be compared to throwing/catching a baseball between 2 people.
The act of throwing and catching is like shooting in the game, where the “player” acts on it. There is no goal in this because I can stop throwing anytime I want to just as I can close my browser when I want. The act of seeing the ball flying into the receiving person’s hand is analogous to seeing the destruction from my shooting since both are rather pointless until I give myself some objective.
Eric Chen
301006074
Since the game makes you wait after shooting a missile, the player is forced to stare at the screen waiting for the red gauge to disappear. The red gauge is transparent, and player is able to see what is going on behind. Soon after, you see the consequences of my single missile throwing action; people weep, change clothes, and carry a big gun. It’s certainly not what I had expected, and it goes by quickly so I repeat my actions. Then I understood the point of this game; to point out that destruction and war for weeding out the threat creates more of the same. Then I noticed that around the corpses of black clothes there were no weepers around them. So I tried to destroy only the gun-carriers by waiting for the right moment to strike at an area. It indeed seem that way after my experiment, and
I started wondering. Is there no more threat arising if only the gun-carriers or buildings were destroyed? Is that what the developers had intended?
This was play since there is no goal neither an end; I had the window open for a while to write about my experience and when I toggled back to it most of the buildings were rebuilt and more people spawning. Also I was creating my own rules to play by it, setting limits of success and failure. When I thought I had enough I changed my rules to see the results from that, just as I would playing with an antfarm.
200106713
Jaehong Jason Joo
The September 12 is a simulation that is more play than a game. As a simulator, I didn't understand the main concept of this game. Was I supposed to be on the side of the terrorist group to target the civilians or vise-versa. Before I could completely finish playing it, I found that I got bored of it because it was the repeat of the same thing over and over again. I would realize this simulation as a game when there is an objective that can be identified. What are the essential goals of the game? The current central mechanic of this game is to point, shoot, and destory whatever we want, however the simulation can be further improved by setting it to do more than just shooting aimlessly at targets.
From what I have experienced from September 12 and also from what I gathered from previous posters, if one considers that simulation a form of play, then it has potential to be a game. Play encompasses Game, and Game encompasses Play. Since there are two simple rules to follow, you can shoot or not, September 12 falls short of a game because you can’t win or lose. As Mike mentioned, the triangle of interaction is created with the shoot mechanic, if the “player” chooses to shoot. I also agree with what Katie Seaborn said about establishing the goal of getting rid of terrorism and the player wins by not doing anything.
Scott Ko
sko@sfu.ca
I wish I'd posted earlier, but better now than never. Anyway...
Fittingly enough, before you can even do any actual shooting, it mentions the fact that this is not a game. Of course that's true - there is no score-keeping, there are no consequences for any "bad actions" as nothing is properly defined as detrimental, since there is no actual goal.
However, there is enough implemented to make turning it into an actual game pretty easy. The central mechanic is there: shooting. There are measures to increase difficulty: reload time, the delay between shooting and the missile hitting your target, population density causing you to potentially hit the wrong targets, etc.
One interesting thing is that the potential is there to make your "character" either good or evil. The most obvious would be that you are on a mission to kill the terrorists, and minimize civilian casualties/destruction of buildings. The fact that when civilians are killed, they become terrorists, increases the difficulty of achieving your goal of killing all the terrorists. There would probably be some sort of a time limit, and when the time runs out a bomb goes off or something. There could also be a terrorist posing as a civilian, and you have to somehow find + neutralize him before he blows himself up.
However, a game could also be built on this that requires you to destroy civilians and buildings. To prevent the game from being trivially easy though, some new elements would have to be introduced. Maybe buildings can take multiple hits, and civilians have the ability to repair/rebuild them. There could also be US soldiers who come and attempt to kill off the terrorists, medics that heal civilians, etc.
That's the power of starting with something completely open-ended like this.
Hope that wasn't too nonsensical. My thoughts are a bit jumbled at the moment.
-Tyson Banov (301007925)
The mechanics that are being involved are shooting missiles and receiving feedback, such as explosion, sound effects when the civilians changes to terrorists, and vices versa.
With this stimulation, the player who interacts with it can create their own goals or restriction by having alternate player input of missiles and the game responds accordingly and changes the player’s cognition.
It’s either you don’t start, or else the stimulation is always the winner. Even though this stimulation is very subjective regarding the amount of fun, but as it leads everyone to the infinite loop, since the player can neither win nor lose in the stimulation, it formed this parallel relationship, and if you break this bonding, for example, by closing the browser, you lose.
lokteen mak | 301002652
I would not consider this a game as it is lacking many qualities that makes up games. Although it has some basic rules (shoot or dont shoot, wait time between firing missles) and mechanics (shooting) it is missing essential parts for it to be a game and is therefore closer to being a form of play. I agree with what Scott said in that it has potential to be a game, I just don't beleive it has reached that point yet. The game does not end, and therefore provides the user with no sense of achievement. Since this simulation is so simple, it quickly becomes repetitive and boring. It lacks many of the 14 forms of fun, so that even if it were considered a game or play, it fails to satisfy.
-Darrell Yeo
(301002034)
I don't understand why a lot of people are black and white on the subject of this being play and not a game. I think stephen added some deepr thought on this idea. Ultimately it's the player that defines when something is a game and when something isn't. Like Eric (guest speaker) said, a lot of game designers have one thing in mind when they create the game, but it can often turn into so many other things. His example was an online game about girls attacking each other that turned into more of a chat service. That game turned out to be more of a form of play. Well, this September 12th thing could be a game when the user decides to make some goals. What game developers do is provide a world of possibilities for gamers, whether those possibilities are intentional or not. Here the author gave some kind of direction or guidance as to how the audience should view his work. But that doesn't stop me from making my own rules to create a challenge or goal.
What strongly reinforces the idea that this is not a game is the emphasis on the triangle discussed in class. Watching the simulation happen, clicking a missile once every so often (which is, I would guess, intentionally delayed so we don't spam missiles), and viewing the results. The style of the game/play is a click-and-shoot but the pace is much much slower than we are used to. Visuals and audio arent emphasized on the killing/explosions, but is spread out on the weeping and transforming into terrorists. It really is a neutral feeling to the entire simulation, almost like an MMORPG would be if it wasn't for quests and missions. MMO -> play is as simple as joking around and going funny stuff like the halo physics demo in tutorials. September 12th -> game requires making some goals for yourself. Maybe try to make as many terrorists as possible. The boundary between game and play is that easy to break.
how it is play
- The game is recognized to be play because there aren’t any rules to follow, no winner or loser, no structure other than destroying buildings and killing people, and disturbingly people may have fun playing this game as a source of entertainment.
how the central mechanic is constructed
- The central mechanic is shooting. It is constructed so that the player can aim (position cursor) at their target and shoot (click), and the result is an object exploding (building, people, mourning civilians turn into terrorists).
how it might be made into a game
- The way it can be made into a game is by adding a way to collect points or keep score on how many objects you can blow up. If there are some rules applied and an objective is created, such as destroy all of the buildings in a certain time limit. Also, a strategy could be used to have a winner or a loser. Currently, there is no competition in the game because the player is allowed to blow up and kill whoever he wants without earning it or getting penalized, he is in control of everything.
Krishna Patel
#200112494
kpatel@sfu.ca
The main game mechanic for "September 12th" is that the user must move their mouse, aim at civilians on the computer screen, and press the left mouse button in order to fire a missile on that spot. The result is that nearby civilians will change their "uniforms" to white; this represents the change in their ideology about the attacker. As a result, as the attacker (user) fires more missiles throughout the city, more civilians will join the terrorists.
Even though the maker of September 12th explicitly said that this is not a game, he/she contradicted this statement by stating “…this is a simulation”. Simulation is one of the elements of what makes it a game. Plane simulators, for example, are a game that lets the user to control and fly a plane. In September 12th, this game lets the user to aim, and fire a missile in a city. The repetitive nature of aiming, and firing the missiles throughout the city is also one of the major elements to any game. In addition, the sound plays a huge role, as it gives the necessary feedback for firing the missile/change from civilian to terrorist. All these elements add up to a game, in my opinion.
- Ching Chun Kao (Kevin) - #200122176
The game mechanic is shooting. In the context of the game, it is not specific as to what the players should aim for when they shoot, meaning there is no clear goal for the game. Also, it was hard to control the shooting action because what you aim for is not necessarily what you will hit. This results in an implication that the means of achieving a goal in war does not always guarantee succession because in all cases, innocent victims happen to be in the way of warfare. There is no objective to this exercise, therefore in my opinion, I don't think this is a game. The presentation is more or less like a narrative. In order to make this into an actual game, there should be goals, rather than options of shooting or not shooting.
September 12 is a game which purpose is far beyond than a just a past time made for mere entertainment. September 12 is giving a message to those who play as an audience to this game.
The message for the game is unclear as the mechanics and goals are very sketchy within details. The more you shoot, the more terrorists will be on your side, and if you were not to shoot anyone, then there will be no terrorists.
This game's objective was clearly focused on the decision made by the players. If they players were to play the game and shoot, they will see the dark side of of September 12 where everyone will be turned into terrorists. This concept may question if this game is actually a game that is made to be played.
The player may choose to play the game to experience everything that was made b the creator of September 12. However, players may regret playing such a game after seeing that there is no goal within the game. Players will never find themselves winning as in the end everyone will lose.
J. Calvin Li
jcl5@sfu.ca
301010009
To play this 'game' all the user has to do is pick a spot and shoot the missile and then wait for the missile to reload.
The central mechanic would just be shooting, it could be realized into a real game if there were objectives or goals that the player has to attain in order to win.
Eg. Get the most kills per shot, or destroy the most buildings.
Anything that adds a little challenge into the game.
This has a simple game mechanic which is targetting and shooting. The user is not actively part of the game environment and you only exist as the person who targets and launches the missles. Since there are no objectives, this game seems more like an exploratory play area that effectively shows how firing missles at towns or populated areas kill more civilians than actual terrorists or people holding guns. It can me made into an actual game if there are goals or missions and also if it wasn't a lose-lose situation every time.
The Sept 12 is a play.Like other people said, there are no rules. and it stated that it is not a game at the beginning. However, I enjoy this game and like the message that the game creator is trying to tell us. I think it is truth that if America throw the missile back to Iraq(or other middle east country) for revenge, the result might be more terrorists appear, and plan to attack US or Other countries in the world.
A lot of people already mentioned that this is not a game because there is not rules nor ending, which I totally agree personally. I think play doesn't need time limit, rules,or goal. You can finish a game in 1 min, or 1 day. It is all depends on the player. To make it into a game, just add time limit, rules, or goal into it.
Terry
200127417
The mechanics of the game September 12 is shooting. In this game, there is not winning or loosing as it is said at the beginning of the game. You shoot by using your mouse to aim at a certain area and click the mouse to shoot so that you can kill the people in that area. All you see is people dying after your bullet shoots the land which this can be the feedback of the game. In a way, this does not seem to be a game to be because there really isn’t a point when you do not get to win or loose, and all you do is just shoot a bunch of people. I think to actually make this into a game, it needs to have people shooting you back and a way to win or lose.
- Claudia Chan (301008307)
This game is used as a political propaganda try multi-media form. It contains many aspects of political arts. Therefore it is not mean for entertaining. The mechanisms of the game are basically aiming and shooting. It is hard to find the ‘fun’ within the game. Though there are a few components that can be considered having the potential to create fun. First, while playing this game players will probably afraid of killing the civilians while every civilian killed will turn more civilians into terrorists, which convinced them to considerate every shot they are making. Second, players sometimes will like to compete against themselves, which means people will tend to get a better shot every time. Third and the strongest aspect is that, this game indeed reveals some facts of the war in iron from the political point of view. This is the part I find being quite interesting and attractive. From the political view, this game reveals the fact of American government killing the civilians while fighting terrorism which is making the situation hard to control. Therefore I will like to consider it as a political art using the form a digital game.
Yang Li(301003612)
From a personal standpoint this game is fairly emotionally powerful. This simulation is 'played' by using the mouse to target the aimer and then left clicking. When the mouse is clicked, hell is unleashed on the unsuspecting civilians, terrorists, buildings woman and children alike. The creator of the game must have had the mindset to show the users how the battles of the "war on terrorism" are fought. That aside, this can easily be turned into a game if there was a quantifiable outcome such as: Killing a certain number of terrorists, civilains or buildings in a round. By adding rules and boundaries such as adding a round timer, or a rule in which you try to kill the terrorists but not the civilians this simulation can be turned into a game.
Matthew Louie (301 007 214)
Several people have argued that September 12th is a game. Although I can see where they are coming from I would have to disagree. The actual program itself is not a game and was never intended to be a game, hence the first line of the instructions "This is not a game." By giving yourself objectives and turning it into a game it completely changes what the author intended September 12th to be. To me, September 12th is like a pen and paper. You can choose to draw/write or not. If you do choose to draw or write you can draw or write whatever you want, whenever you want for however long you want. There is no objective. However, the user could if they wanted to create a game using the pen and paper. For example, they could play tic-tac-toe or hangman using the pen on the paper. The pen and paper do not make up a game but rather they are tools used to create whatever game the user wants. This is the same for September 12th. The user can take the missile and use it however he or she wants on the buildings, people, etc. There are no rules. There are no objectives. There is no winner. There is no game.
Aaron Ramler
301013035
Although this is not game but a play due to lack of final goal, September 12 is definitely a very potential simulator to become a game. The game mechanics are simple, to shoot and destroy building or kill people, even though I was told at the begging that there is no end to this simulator, I still find myself trying to kill/blow up everything. To make this a proper game, more many things need to be added. First of all, there need to be more interesting game mechanics other than just blowing up buildings and killing innocent people over and over, once the game makes players feel repetitive they lose interests.
Second, a goal is required to determine a winner. Say kill all the terrorists or blow up certain building in order to end the game.
The main purpose of this simulator is obvious; it’s simply showing us what’s happening to our world. By killing terrorists changes nothing but only to create more, players might have the ability to control high technology missiles and to choose what to blow up or kill, but nothing will change other than getting worse.
The mechanic of this simulation is very basic, shoot. It is not a game, because it lacks rules and goals.I guess this could be considered play in the "time-waster" sense(unless you take into account how it makes you think). This simulation made me think immediatly of the readings from last week (or maybe from the week before) on how ethics are mingled and transformed during a game. I found it difficult (not in the aiming sense) to target and shoot people while exploring this simulation (perhaps this was their intent).
September 12 includes simple mechanics such as point and click. The qualities that make it 'play' is that there is no rules, you can choose to shoot or not to, there is no limit to the game, you can destroy buidings, kill civilians and choose to just watch them rebuild their town endlessly.
September 12 can be made into a game just by having a time limit or counter for how many civilians you kill compared to the terrorist, and maybe include a maximum ammount of allowed civilian tragedies. These will help establish rules and also a goal for the user to reach, henceforth making it into a game instead of just play.
Sorry for the heartless sounding comment.
September 12 is fun to play with because it has some of the 14 factors of fun such as thrill of danger, power,and application of skills.
Nonetheless it is not an actually game because there are no rules and goal or endpoint.
However I noticed the educational value in this game. In order to kill one terrorist the player usually ends up killing many civilians and buildings, which reflects the dark side of wars.
In this game, the player has to move the mouse to decide on which location should the rockets land. The game mechanic is controlled by the x and y axis to determine where the rocket lands on the map. It can be made into a game in training soldiers to shoot rockets more accurately in real-life so tragedies like the Canadian soldiers being killed by US missiles in Iraq will not happen. Components like the life points and scoring can be included, too If the player has successfully killed the terrorists, he will gain game points; however, if he has killed the innocents, he will lose life points. Another component that can be included is levels. In ‘September 12’, I find it very hard to kill the terrorists without killing the innocents. So when this is made into an actual game, the game designer can consider in making the previous levels with lesser innocent people walking on the map and the terrorists will not go near to the pedestrians too often to make the targeting easier. Another thing is that the player will be given a choice of what weapons he wants to use to shoot down the terrorists. Since the rockets (current weapon) will always involve a large range of destruction, it is almost impossible to kill the terrorists without killing the innocents. Therefore, if the player gets to use weapons such as snipers then this problem can be solved. Different game points can also be given to the player when the player shoots at different parts of the terrorists’ body such as when the player uses a sniper to headshot or shoot the heart of a terrorist, they will gain a more game points than just shooting the terrorist in other parts of the body. The next thing that can be included is a store menu where the player gets to buy more weapons and life points as well as other accessories that will assist the player in the game in-between the levels with the game points that he has gain throughout the game. Last component that I want to suggest which can be included is the ‘focus mode’ such as the one in ‘The Matrix’ game where everything is slow down in allowing the player to aim better at the terrorists. And when the player’s ‘energy rate’ for the ‘focus mode’ is low, he can find buy ‘energy drink’ to recover in-between the levels. Lastly, I want to comment on the game that this is a very educational game that teaches people that wars will only cause more casualties and make the relatives of the killed innocents to become terrorists.
This "simulation" contains more elements of play than that of a game. You could make into a game by creating a goal for yourself such as destroy all the buildings. As the opening screen declares there is no beginning or no end. Which we have discussed in class is play. So from the perspective of play i found this "simulation" to be very enjoyable, becuase it is what you make of it. From the game perspective this "simulation" does not challenge the user and does not give the user a goal, so it becomes boring quickly.
Gordon Brown
gordonb@sfu.ca
September 12 lack of critical aspect of the game “final goal”, so it is simply a “play” simulator. In order to make this a game, some things should be added. User goal for one, simply set an ending for the simulator to create a win/lose result. Other things like, more weapons for selections or score keeping making this game more interesting.
The mechanics: Aiming at buildings, civilians and terrorists and launching rocket missiles simply by clicking on the mouse.
The game in the beginning tells you that it is not a game. If that's not enough, it lacks many elements that define a game. There is no score keeping nor any achieving objectives that would clear the stage. From a gamer's point of view, this games fails to provide any entertainment values. But is it educational? I would say so. The title gives away the intention behind the game. By depicting the American government retaliating for the 9/11 attack, the flash asks a choice to the players: Would you take the revenge?
The mourners turn into terrorists and the more you kill, the more number of those with guns in their hands. There is no end by killing. Your action creates a reaction and you have to face the consequences. It's brilliant that the maker of this flash allowed it to be interactive in order to attract more attention. But without a doubt, the he/ she wanted to send a message through the subtle form of educational medium. This is not a fun game, but is a simple and straight forward way to learn.
The mechanics of this “simulation” are aim and shoot. It lacks a goal. Surely you can shoot buildings, civilians, and terrorist but what is the point? Currently, it is just a narrative device that tells us what would happen if we did this or that.
To make this into a game, there should be at least one objective for the player.
Sze Hon (Johnnie) Tso
johnniet@sfu.ca
301012567
Post a Comment