Thursday, April 16, 2009

Physicality and Games

In today's class, you have learned about physicality and games, and two important aspects how recent games change the way we play and understand computer games: these games appear to facilitate a new sensitivity to movement or exertion and social play, contrasting the way traditional computer games with their gamepad and mouse and keyboard interactions.

Homework:

  • Find group for presentation, enter into blog before next lecture (earlier especially if you present next week)!
  • Find team for project, also enter into blog before next lecture!
  • Read the two papers under schedule for next week
  • If you are presenting next week, practice timing!
  • Read also: Tips to working successfully in a group

79 comments:

  1. Please post here your comments on the class.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ok, It's Anh-tu Tran ...AKA... "The JACKET HATER" just a little annoyed with the lack of definition of the phrase "physical games" I think it should mean a game involving any significant effort in terms of physical movement regardless if it involves an electronic interface or not. For example Wii Tennis..is that not a video game that involves a significant amount of movement & effort? A normal video game requires little physical effort & therefore can't be classified as a "physical game" just because your fingers are pressing buttons are on the controller

    ReplyDelete
  3. Logan Gray s3235083April 16, 2009 at 6:56 PM

    Hey there its Logan Gray here, i was sitting next to Tim, top left. (s3235083 if you need to know) i think that todays lecture was much more productive than any of the other lectures we had had in maths so far this yea. We interacted more and had more initiative to do so with the " star rating system". As Ahn-tu said, i was also a little dissapointed that we could not come to a unified conclusion on what is a "physical game". It just frustrated me that we did not get a definitive answer! Overall i like the system we have going on here with the blogspot site and the like, look forward to next weeks lecture!
    thanks, Logan

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scott Battye S3201290April 16, 2009 at 7:49 PM

    Scott Battye here, I was sitting next to Anh-Tu. I believe we did learn something, we learnt that everyone's understanding of the term "physical game" is different.

    Scott.
    P.S My comment regarding eye movement in the cinema doesn't mean I beleive that it's a physical game... it was just my petty attempt at sarcasm.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey, name's Sama.

    Today's lecture was active and interesting, better than any other Maths and Physics lecture we've had before. But I have to agree with prior comments ...'physical games' are all about exerting energy, action/reaction, movement etc. I wouldn't say mashing buttons is anything really 'physical'. Sure, you're moving your thumbs and all ..but that's about it. To me, the definition is pretty clear.

    Anyways, hopefully next week will be a little more exciting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey, this is Tim.

    I think that any movement that controls a video game needs to actually mimic the action that will happen on screen to be called a physical game. For example pushing a button does not imitate swinging a sword, swinging a wii-mote, however, does. It’s not the amount of movement that counts, rather the type of movement. As for a lack of a definition, we should come up with one here…

    “Physical Games”, the definitive definition:
    Any activity with rules that is done for enjoyment, and that involves the movement of the body to either achieve a goal in reality or mimic an action that manifests in virtual reality.
    As you can see this got very convoluted very quickly! But yeah that’s my attempt.

    Also, I think that 20% of marks being allocated to comments made in the lectures is unfair. In any group some people will naturally lead discussion more than others, especially with such a large class. There's about 70 of us. But it is great to see such energetic class discussion happening and it definately makes for a more engaging lecture that I’m used to.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I loved the lecture. It was a great change in that it was ORGONISED (Unlike previous lectures) and very lively, involving everyone. I look forward to the rest of the semester :)

    "What is physical gaming?"
    I think we all made it a little too complicated. I think we all associate "Physical Gaming" with the absence of technology. Simple as that. I guess you have systems like the wii that try to bind the fine borders of what is physical and what is virtual. However, to me, that's not physical gaming. I think it really needs to be based around not using technology, hence why its PHYSICAL gaming. Gaming itself can be either. It's virtual gaming when the physics and gaming is emulated using technology.

    - Benny Head (The Giant)

    ReplyDelete
  8. G'day, its Kidney.

    Today's lecture was certainly unusual and inspired discussion in an interesting and enthusiastic way.

    I think the hug vest would need a serious advertisment campaign to get anywhere in the current times but would benefit greatly from the ability to implement more complicated actions. These could include massages and tickling. In the future as the youth of this world become more and more reliant on technology to socialise it could become more attractive as people would be constantly communicating through handhelds devices (eventually wired directly into their brains) and could easily send a hug, massage, tickle or poke through an msn like program which would allow them to gain the attention of their cyber buddy (like a nudge in msn) as they ignore the real world and run into a few newly padded sign posts.

    You would have to slim down the design of the vest to make it trendy, this could be done by coverting the vest shape into something more fitting and stylised, with a wide variety of shapes, sizes and styles. It could enhance its actions by having an inbuilt heater which applies warmth during the appropriate situation. It could also focusing its pressure on more sensitive areas to focus its energy and the sensation - especially for the massage action.
    Instead of using a loud air pump you could use electrically powered magnets which can be turned on independantly to allow greater flexibility and repel themselve against outer magnets to apply pressure to the skin. This would be even more effective if the hug suits were eventually individually fitted to each socially inadept "Generation Z"ian.

    If we do truely become technology dependant it could be used as a way to socialise, comfort and potentially flirt... depending on how far you extend the vest idea... cough.

    The project you've given us is interesting but certainly a little imposing... two groups with different people to be found in one week? Harsh man, harsh.

    How will my partially technology scarred social skills fare? To be continued in next week's post...

    Daniel Kidney

    ReplyDelete
  9. Howdy! Nikki Loyson here, today's lecture was great and I find myself actually looking forward to the rest of these classes based on today. Getting us all involved and allowing us to have our say on both physical gaming and the hugging jacket (hugget?) was awesome and really got us all thinking about everyone's opinions and the reasons behind it.

    When it came to the discussion on physical gaming a lot of good points were raised which made me reevaluate my own opinion, I think that most people's idea of physical gaming was valid and understood why most felt that way.

    I personally think of physical gaming as gaming with more physical activity than simply pushing a few buttons, clicking a mouse or rolling some dice like in more traditional gaming, I see it as having to participate in a physical manner where your whole body gets involved, whether that be playing basketball, hopscotch, wii fit or twister.

    -Nikki

    PS. Great idea getting us to comment the blogs, it gives us the opportunity to get our thoughts together and once again revisit everyone else's viewpoints.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Benny. My lack of social life has caused me to come back for a second post.

    I think the jacket is a good start concept but needs a lot of development work. The fact is not many people would buy it if it's sole feature was similar to that of a inflateable life jacket.

    Here are some suggestions:
    - Quieter, so people in public don't notice your depressing loneliness, and they continue avoiding you.
    - Smaller, so it can fit under ur jacket lining, and so it doesn't look like you're about to roll over a bank.
    - Touch based air compression, so it actually felt like a hug, and not like being squished between two fat women on a train.
    - Skype features. So you could connect it to an audio communication device (phone) and it'd give the ability to do a whole bunch of nice little gestures, including hugs.
    - If it did all this AND gave back massages, i could probably give up women.
    - Perhaps a kiss simulator? No? Nobody? Ok nevermind.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cagdas "Chad" ToprakApril 16, 2009 at 10:47 PM

    Hello, Chad here, and here's my attempt at critical analysis. I'm only putting forward ideas and not really trying to define anything. Here it goes.

    I think it's very hard to come up with a precise definition of what a "physical game" is. It reminds me of trying to define what "art" is.

    Everyone has their own definition of art, some may say it's just paintings on walls, some may say it's literature, others may say dancing, singing or playing a musical instrument. Sound can be art, light can be art, games can be art. If we want go to the extreme, urinals can be considered as art (see: Marcel Duchamp's Fountain).

    Before defining what a physical game is, we have to define what the word "physical" means to us, and what its borders are (if there are any), and the same for the word "game".

    So, can we consider moving our thumbs and fingers up and down "physical"? Can we consider moving our eyes around "physical"? Or do we have to use a significant number of muscles (how many exactly?) or specific muscles (which ones?) for the action to count as "physical"?

    My definition of "physical" may differ from yours. This is quite natural. Different ethnic groups, different genders and different age groups may have (and probably will have) different definitions.

    When it comes to word "games", things may get a little more tricky. "Games" may have meant playing hide-and-seek, skipping or playing chess ten to twenty years ago. However, the video games field/industry has developed (or even "evolved") dramatically in the last few years, and has taken over the definition of "games".

    Ultimately "games" can be thought of as a type of "play" (difference between play and game is a whole subject on its own, see: "Introduction to Game Development" by Steve Rabin for a brief overview) which involves wining in a way. Games may or may not have rules. Games can be played by one person (Flip a coin, if Heads I win, if Tails I lose, yes pretty boring but still a game). Games can be played by more than one person (Flip a coin, if Heads I win and you lose, if Tails you win and I lose, less boring than the first example, but still boring).

    Today most of us think of Playstation, Xbox, Wii, DS, PSP and PC when we hear the word "game". You ask someone what a game is today, "Well, it's what you play on a console or computer. World of Warcraft is a good one, there's Crysis, that's a blast! Oh and Halo is mind-blowing!" is the sort of answer you'll get from the majority of young teenagers and adults. Older people may say "A good game of chess". Again, the definition of game may vary depending on age, gender, culture, education level, etc.

    A hunter calls the deer he/she is hunting "game". What if someone in the class had taken out a rifle and started looking for deer or bears? (damn I should have done that!) What about a game of roulette? There's some physical action going on there? Some think of gambling when they hear the word "game".

    When our lecturer Floyd told us to play a physical game. We all got up and ran around the room doing physical action. None of us took out their handheld consoles and played a game of Tetris (where our hands and eyes are doing the physical action. in fact, our brain is doing physical action if we drop down to atomic level, or is that too extreme?).

    This action was intuitive, because the way we were brought up, physical games mean using the body in some way for most of us, video games were a second, third or maybe forth option (probably not forth since we're all studying games). But imagine what our children or grandchildren would do if they were told to play a "physical game" years after today. Do you think they would have done what we did today?

    What if our lecturer Floyd had said "Everyone get up and play a physical 'video' game"? Would everyone not have ran up to the Wii and lined up to play a round of tennis?

    As a conclusion, the definition of "physical games", like many other definitions, is an ever-changing term. Today "Nintendo Wii" seems to be the closest definition for most of us (even though no one touched it during class), but who knows what it will mean tomorrow.

    Who knows? We do! Because we're the people who will be designing what will be played tomorrow.

    I really liked today's class. It got most of us thinking critically. I really hope this was only a taste of what we'll be doing this semester. I'm sure everyone is wondering what the rest of the iceberg is like :)

    Thank you very much Floyd for the fantastic class!! Do I get a star? :D


    Tschüss :D
    Cagdas "Chad" Toprak.
    BA - Digital Art - 3233614

    ReplyDelete
  12. Chad you did what I could not, all I could muster was to say everyone's opinion was different... but to explain it all... Kudos to you sir.

    I think the ultimate conclusion could be drawn in the fact that the term "physical game" doesn't have a single definition :).

    Scott.

    ReplyDelete
  13. hey hey, its Leanne

    Todays lecture like the previous ones presented us with the lecturers background and previous projects they've worked on, but unlike the others, thanks for involving us and making it as interactive and as interesting as you could.

    must say, twas a good icebreaker

    Yeah so it turned into a massive discussion which was pretty cool, everyone was able to give their two cents and keep interested and engaged in the conversation. And the what really is a "physical game", yeah well as you could tell theres a general idea that floats around..hence people getting up and 'touching' eachother :) ... but the term "physical gaming* could fall upon anything to do with physically using part of your body to interact and compete with another person, with an incentive to achieve a
    goal, to being able to mimic a physical movement with aid of modern technology to play in a virtual word.. yes, so all interpretations could apply :)

    plus the GOLD STAR method, good idea to encourage class involvement and contribution, i had a chart like that in Yr 4 but we got lollies when we reached a certain point..
    the good old days..

    would we get such great rewards perchance?
    haha

    -Leanne

    ReplyDelete
  14. Chiming in with the brilliant lecture sentiments, it truly put the others to shame. Sorry Stewart, you had the right idea with showing us Flight of the Conchords, but Kanye? Oy vey.

    I must say that any of my musings upon the ~*~physical game~*~ has pretty much been said already, possibly better than I ever could articulate myself. Well done everyone, we sure are a bright bunch of children. I'll add my opinion anyway even if it is severely redundant.

    If I were to be asked the definition of a game before having this class, I would have replied with something with a set of rules, an objective and some form of movement/activity occurring with the intention of achieving said objective. Having this class today got me thinking though: doesn't the definition of a game depend on the state of the mind of the person playing it just as much as the game itself? I could get all crazy metaphysical and ontological about the subject, but this ain't Philosophy class, so a (somewhat ridiculous but fair) example: what if (an extremely dull-witted, sure) someone who had never seen a Nintendo Wii in their lives happened upon one with the Wii Fit coveniently installed in it, and began "playing" it with the goal of losing weight, using and treating it as as one would say, a treadmill? To them, for as long as no one tells them what it is, it isn't a game. What defines the object? Does its "essence" stay static no matter who uses it? Who is it that gets ~the final say~?

    Uh, all of that sounded much clearer and less silly in my head. I'm sure there are better examples I could have used. But put simply: WHO defines the game? The creator or the player? What about when it changes? At what point does it stop being a game and simply... a series of movements, with no purpose or rhyme whatsoever? DUN DUN DUNNNNNN

    (I don't know why I keep coming up with weight loss examples, I have not voluntarily engaged in any form of exercise for the past three years.)


    Rachel

    ReplyDelete
  15. (Oh, and one more thing: in reply to Daniel Kidney (I think) who suggested today that the level of physicality of a game be defined through WHERE the results occur, i.e. the virtual world or the physical one, in the case of the WiiFit, aren't the results seen equally in both worlds? Physical input (button-pressing) goes into a virtual reality, which gives the output of graphics/text/a dancing Mii, which in turn create the output of physical movement with the result of ULTIMATE HEALTH AND FITNESS.

    yeah I'll go now)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Great comments, keep them coming!

    Couple of comments: I feel like commenting on many great ideas, but I want you to discuss amongst yourself first, so please be assured your comments are valued even if I don't reply individually.

    Chad's argument is the most impressive one, can you figure out why?

    Daniel talked about 'the action' in the physical world in class today: there is a book called 'where the action is' by Paul dourish if this idea interests you further.

    Well done everyone!
    Cheers,
    Floyd

    ReplyDelete
  17. Daniel Angelone s3236600April 17, 2009 at 2:12 AM

    Eyy its Dan, :)

    Jus thought i should say i really like this 'new' maths and physics. I see the physics but so far not a hint of maths YAY!

    Ok, i found our second first lecture far more stimulating and entertaining than i was expecting. However I really enjoyed a much more open and engaging class discussion, to a sit and draw-i mean sit and listen lecture. this much more involved and interesting structure has hooked me and i am already looking forward to the next lecture...

    To me, the notion of a physical game is subjective. Of course everyone is going to have their own opinion on what a 'physical game' is, as mentioned by Chad everyone is brought up with different concepts. That just means we all believe we are correct, but who is anyone else to say that we are not - because it still may be right to us.
    I believe that a physical game is what it's name indicates, a game that takes place in the physical world rather than a mental or virual world (such as in video games). Furthermore any 'game' that requires an individual to make significant physical movements, that gets their heart pumping and blood flowing can be considered 'physical games.' Although this still doesnt cover every game possibility the basic idea is to outline types or forms of games that are seperate to any requireing electronic hardware.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Cagdas "Chad" ToprakApril 17, 2009 at 2:29 AM

    I want people to consider this.

    Is there a difference between a real world bike race, where you are competing against a rival while riding a bike in a real world track AND a virtual bike race, where you are competing against an opponent player (or CPU) while still riding a bike, but one that is static (meaning stuck to the ground) and is hooked up to a large panel which simulates a racing track?

    There's physical action going on in both cases. Both can be considered as games.Both will get your heart pumping.
    So what's the difference? Where's the line? Or is the line seamless?

    Why would one be considered more of a physical game than the other?

    Cheers, Chad.

    P.S. Yes, it's 2:27AM! >.< Good night

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rhiannon BaragwanathApril 17, 2009 at 10:31 AM

    Hi this is Rhiannon. I don't have so much to add to this stream of involving comments however I am interested by the term 'physical' in regards to playing physical games and what they are or are not. I PERSONALLY think that including phone games and video games (except wii) is pushing the boundaries of what a physical game is - I'm sure you can find ways of saying they are, but when you consider out in-built idea of physicality, they don't really fit in. But I'm here to be taught new and outrageous ideas, so I'm happy to think outside the box. =)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hey, it's Charlie (s3235986) here. Um, I found yesterday's lecture really fun as it gave us a chance to interact as a class more. Our previous classes were not like that, and it was a nice change. Oh, and getting us to do the whole "Stand up and play something physical" was pretty cool, cos it made us rethink what the definition of "Physical" which was interesting. Also, I like how we'll be marked and graded from now on. Hooray for no exams. =]

    ReplyDelete
  21. Andrew "Dooshie" DemetriouApril 17, 2009 at 12:12 PM

    What up commenters? Dooshie is all up in this mofo.
    First and foremost i want to compliment the layout of this blog site. It was a tad confusing at first (am i just retarded?) but now i have a grasp of it, plus i freakin love the colour orange.

    Oh and about the lecture...
    I think it was far more productive than any other 'maths and physics' lecture that we've had this year, and i would also rank it amongst the top lectures that i've seen in my university life. I enjoyed how interactive it was, and i also liked that mini-debates seemed to form all over the room.

    I may be alone in saying this, but i actually think that the definition of physical games was quite clear, and while non-unanimous within our group, it's fairly concise and easy to understand in my opinion. These are things that are nessecary in such a core foundation of the unit, and i am glad that i can now understand what a physical game is without great difficulty. I'm sure this will help a fair amount of people in completing their various assignments more than they can presently understand.

    ...

    All right i'm done. I shall conclude with:
    Much credit on the lecture. I enjoyed it on many levels, and i believe it connected the class in a way that was not done with our previous lecturer.
    1 gold star for Floyd.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hey this is Jacob Paris, right in the back throwing the ball around.

    It was a good session, you definitely instigated a greater amount of thought in the class than I've seen in any other Maths and Physics classes, and, in fact, in most of the classes in general.
    I loved the focus on definition, genre has always been something that intrigued me. But my opinion for this particular problem is the same as it's always been: there's no real necessity to perfectly define what a 'physical game' is nor what types of games can be considered 'physical'.

    In this new industry we are being thrown into, innovation is the key. In that way we will constantly strive to break any conventions forced upon us, just as the Wii has attempted to do with its movement integration.

    Attempts to create 'perfect genres' are useless, they simply lead to titles such as 'action/adventure' and then 'action/adventure/rpg/shooter/raspberry jammer'. My point is that sometimes we shouldn't force things into definitions, we should just accept that new definitions need to be made.

    But if I had to define it I'd have to say that it entirely depends on semiotics (similar to what Chad suggested) and how society 'sees' the term 'physical games'. The reason that everyone played games like 'rock, paper, scissors' in the classroom when asked to play a physical game is because that is where our mind jumps to when hearing the term. Interpretation of the term is indeed based on our understanding of language which varies from person to person and, more particularly, from culture to culture.

    Games, being a relatively new industry, has the beautiful quality of being mostly universal in terms of understanding through various cultures. Still though, no one can debate that our life experiences influence how we see the world and that how we see and describe the world is entirely dependant on language. Chad's hunter example was fantastic in portraying this.

    We also see things differently depending on circumstance. Like with the hunter example; had we been in forest and had a rifle thrust into our hands we no doubt would have seen 'physical game' as a deer or a bear. Basically, what we are trying to do here is define the way our minds work, and the mind is an impossibly complicated and ever-changing thing. Thus, perfect definition may be out of our grasp.

    And I think, where areas get cloudy, it'd be best to define a game as physical when the majority of the effort being made is with exertion of the players body. And maybe also the majority of reaction that takes place due to this physical exertion being within reality, rather than virtual reality. Still, games like wii tennis break those boundaries and create a sort of 'physical/virtual game'. But, in the end, isn't that the reason they appeal to such a wide demographic?

    Thanks for the chance to think Floyd, and I hope we still have a good emphasis on creativity and imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jiajing Zhang s3213125April 18, 2009 at 5:34 PM

    Hey, this is Jiajing.

    Um, I think this week's lecture was much more interesting and productive than any other Maths and Physics lectures that we'v had before. Also, it's pretty cool we can comment the blogs here and make discussions. It gives us the opportunity to listen to other classmates' opinions.

    In the lecture, we discussed physical games. Before, I was not very interested in video games or computer games, also, I didn't have a clear concept of physical games. But, after much discussions, I had an initial impression of physical games, and I can understand it now.

    What is a "physical game"?
    I think "physical game" is a video game or a computer game which players can participate in some professional sports. These kind of games are almost based on some real sport events. Such as the NBA and the World Cup. It's about action, movement, strength, technique, etc. These actions and movements are mimicked, and showed on the screen. They're some of my personal ideas on physical games...

    Overall, I really like this new change in Maths and Physics. I believe I can learn more about this course. Actually, I did learn something that inspire and interst me greatly.

    Thank you so much Floyd.
    I'm looking forward to the next fantastic lecture. =)

    Jiajing.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi! Its Carla here! :D

    Wow, some awesome opinions here about physical games

    Hmm, my opinion of what a Physical Game is….

    I think that is very hard to define, like others have stated before me. But its obviously a game, with rules that requires the use of all parts, a few parts or just one part of the human body.

    Maybe I can briefly divide “Physical games” into different genres:

    Traditional Physical Games:
    Traditional Physical Games are those that were used to play (or still play) when we were younger, such as hide and seek, “Tiggy”, 40/40, etc. Those games require the use of the whole human body, a set of rules and an aim.

    Virtual Physical games:
    All virtual games need some sort of physical action to play them, like pressing a button, moving your arm around from time to time, even moving your legs when your getting a little nervous. The Wii is a good example of a physical game that requires you to move about, considering the rules of the game and the aim.

    Sport Physical games:
    Sport games obviously need the use of the human body. Soccer, Tennis, Swimming etc all need to use the human body in some way considering the set of rules and an aim.

    (there would be other genres but I cannot think of them at the moment)
    The thing they all have in common is they all have rules in which to play by, an aim and some sort of physical action to make it a “physical game”.

    Walking doesn’t have rules attached, breathing doesn’t, looking around doesn’t, so we don’t put those physical actions in the game genre.

    A game is all about rules and an ultimate aim. Physical games mean you are required to get that aim physically.

    So that’s my definition of physical games.
    Cheers!
    Carlita :D

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hey again, I should probably clear up my "virtual physical games" statement.

    I am really only referring to the Wii as a good example of a Virtual physical game, because you need to get to the aim physically , which will make it a physical game.

    Anyway, just wanted to make it a little more clear.

    Also, looking forward to the next lecture!
    Sorry for double posting.
    Have a good day,
    Carlita :D

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hey, Leigh here (aka 3238700, but only by my best friends).

    re: new lecture style;
    comparatively, you're fantastic.
    Overall I like the new format with its level of interaction/participation, it's much more interesting and engaging to be able to argue and debate over a point rather than hearing it and accepting it.
    however in future i would personally like to see the potential this group discussion put into better use on deeper conceptual topics, although somewhat helpful, i thought that, once we had gotten out the core conceptual ideas from the responses we heard, our arguments over the somewhat trivial attempts at a literal, dictionary definition for the term 'physic game' quickly became pretty stale.
    sorry if i sound i bit too critical, I'll say again that i really like the new format, this is just all i can find 'wrong' with it.

    re: jacket;
    I think that the product as is stands wouldn't be marketable, but, i do see good potential in the idea. my main problem with it is that i cannot see myself paying however much it would costs (which i am assuming is high given that you said producing just one jacket managed to break the bank on your funding.) without the gizmo itself being much more advanced to the point where it is not a gimmick or a one trick pony.
    It's been articulated by a few other people already and i tried to say it myself in the lecture but it didn't come out right; I think that the jacket needs to not simply be a whole body hug using compressed air, but instead, simulate the sensation of touch across many smaller parts of the jacket (so that it could simulate massage, tickling, pokes, hugs ect.) which would not simply be pre-scripted sequences (like the hug is now) but instead should be interactive, perhaps using many sensors on the body of the koala. The sensation would also of course need to be 2 way, 2 jackets, 2 koalas.
    i think if it had that then it would be much more appealing as a new piece of technology as apposed to a remote controlled life vest.
    i understand that you did want to make the product better (2 vests ect.) but you stated that your funding ran out so I'm sorry if i sound like I'm being too harsh on your product as it is now. I also understand that the additional functionality that i proposed is probably far more difficult and expensive to make reality than it sounds.

    re: definition of 'physical game';
    like chad, i don't believe its something you can fully quantify, its completely relative and up for interpretation. i would a physical game is an activity involving rules/goals and physical exertion (anything higher than moving of thumbs and eyeballs).

    scrolling up now it seems I've written to much.
    I'll shut up now.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Howdy all. Ned Kirner here. Figured midnight was as good a time as any to put in my two cents.

    Regarding the lecture format, I was a fan. Put me into full debate and discussion mode, anyhow. Can't help but find myself waiting to post that the lecture was no good just so I can pick a post apart. Quite like my old philosophy classes this whole focus on meaning. Shall the same hilarity ensue when meanings are not defined? We shall see.

    As for the meaning of a Physical Game, Chad has it pretty much tagged and bagged, particularly on this point:

    "Ultimately "games" can be thought of as a type of "play"... ...which involves wining (sic) in a way."

    The ability to "win" is pretty much the line which separates games from play. You play with lego... until you are competing with another kid to build the most spectacular spaceship ever to navigate the childcare centre. Then you are playing a game USING lego.

    Here's a thought. How many people do you know who just like to build people and houses in 'The Sims'? They don't usually play the actual game nearly as much as they do spend creating and tweaking. Would it be fair to say that people like that are not "Playing the Sims" but "Playing WITH the Sims"?

    You hear it said that 'The Sims' is a game which cannot be won, but that's not entirely true. When somebody is first dropped into that first cheapo house with their very own digital doll (or avatar, depending on how your mind works), the player starts setting their own goals. This goal setting defines further playing as being part of a 'game'.

    This difference becomes more evident when peoples personal preferences are thrown into the mix. I'm partial to a spot of Sim-ing, and my dad's partner is a huge fan, but my dad? Hates it. My dad is very much a "linear" gamer, he is instantly turned off by open worlds and open games. He reads reviews which criticize a game as being linear and says, "Right, I'm getting that one!" Gamers like him want a game to tell them what to do, want the obstacles created by the game, not the player.

    Anyhow, I suppose that little tangent ties in somewhat haphazardly with this discussion on the meaning of the "Game" part of a "Physical Game" in that it demonstrates that just because something is a computer game doesn't mean it can't be ignored for favour of the goalless play set within.

    In philosophy, meanings are best when they're allowing the discussion to move into deeper waters. 'He who controls the definition, controls the argument'.

    Can't wait to see where the argument of this class leads ;)

    -Time for bed (or maybe Sins of a Solar Empire instead), Ned.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I think the new lecture style is brilliant. Rather than going to a class where i was bored to death, i i felt rather engaged and interested, and walked away with something to actually think about. Like how ambivilant the meaning for 'Physical Games' is.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Morning all, Dylan here...

    Okay, I'm going to apologise up front for if i jump around, throw out conflicting ideas or just talk crap...

    First up, I pose this question to you all: Was our maths lecture in fact a physical game?
    I gather from some people's opinions that some define a 'physical game' as an activity that includes:
    - getting people interacted with each other
    - fun
    - and is physical in the sense of doing in the real world

    The math lecture did these 3 things (at least for most people) (and no i'm not saying that these are the only 3 ingredients for a physical game i'm just throwing this out there). This notion that the math lecture could be a physical game lies in a person's perception of the activity.

    As with most things i'm unsure of the definition for and want further clarification, i looked it up in my trusty pocket dictionary i keep by my computer:

    Physical: adj. of the body, as contrasted with the mind or spirit; of material things or nature; of physics

    Game: n. amusement or pasttime; contest for amusement; single period of play in a contest; scheme or trick; animals or birds hunted for sport or food

    I'll start off briefly giving my initial thoughts on this definition of physical: of the body is quite relavent to our discussion as one of the main points we seem to be debating is where the line is drawn when you're not doing enough bodily movement or exertion of effort and the activity you are involved in is no longer a 'physical game' and the point that the dictionary makes: "as contrasted with the mind" can be used to try and prove that strategical video games such as Age of Empires and the like and real world games such as chess aren't physical because the majority of work is being done in your mind (mental work: think about last move, next move, one after that, trying to foresee how the game will play out.
    As opposed to the physical work: move pawn). However. The point made in the definition: "of material things or nature". Well where does the realm of material things stop? (And you'll hav to forgive my lack of knowledge and education in science) is what occurs in your brain, all the electrical impulses and however your mind works - is that material in the world? It's nature at least. And if you take that point to the idea of a video game console - all the wiring and the hardware and how that works, is the hardware material - yes. Is the processes of the console working material? I don't know, i told you i hav a lack of science knowledge.

    And as for the definition of game. We'll take the most relevant parts of that: "amusement or pasttime; contest for amusement". It's a very broad term and its boundaries aren't very clearly defined because then everyone finds different things amusing and everyone has their own favourite pasttime. However what I'm gathering from the point of it being a "contest for amusement" says that a game should have an outcome of a winner and a loser.

    That being said I believe that the term is very open for interpretation and that there is no definitive way it is to be taken. Though that can be said by a lot if not everything...

    I know there's more i wanted to say but yet again my memory has failed me so yeah we'll leave it at that.


    So in other news, I loved the lecture and look forward to the next. You sure know how to put on an inviting and engaging class. Fantastic stuff!

    Toodles
    - Dylan

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hi everybody~

    I’m John, you’ll probably never hear me speak publically so don’t bother remembering. Here’s my opinion.

    Physical to me should be defined as a conscious effort to move. I know that’s very basic and boring, but I feel that as a game designer in-training, this is the most relevant argument. When you play Rock, Paper, Scissor you are making conscious movements. When flipping a coin, there is a movement involved. Pressing a button is more related to memorising patterns/reflexes. I’m not saying that there is no motion involved with pressing a button! Just that we subconsciously define pressing a button and…doing other things as different. That’s why when Floyd told us to play a physical game we all stood up and did something as opposed to pulling out our phones. If we’re going to get into eye movement or motor functions then were just going into semantics. There is a clear distinction in the mainstreams view between video games and physical games. It mostly exists as an excuse for current affairs programs to use videogames as a scapegoat for all of society ills, but I digress.

    The Wii’s main appeal lies in the novelty of playing a game with physical movements rather than pressing a button as the main method for input. We can safely presume that in the next generation of consoles, all consoles will feature a means for physical actions to register as input. By then, the novelty may have worn off, and the line between videogames and physical games will be blurred. I think an interesting case is the DS. It’s second nature to use a pen and get a result. One of our earliest experiences is to be given a paintbrush and a piece of paper and to be told to go nuts. For me, this is where it gets much more difficult to define. Using the stylus is completely intuitive. Perhaps I’m talking out of my ass…

    Somebody mentioned rewards in the physical world versus rewards in the virtual one; which I think is a very interesting way of looking at it. I think we need to ask ourselves where we draw the line with what constitutes a game. Wii Fit is…probably what I would consider a game. I haven’t played it, but I gather that there is some direct interaction with the game involved instead of watching a work-out video. Anyway, if I exercise for an hour, I become that much fitter. If I play Halo for an hour, my reward is becoming better at Halo (and having fun for an hour.) Wii fit achieves both of these results. Maybe it could be classed as something different altogether, like edutainment…. Exerfun? Funnercise?

    Anyway, thanks for the lecture Floyd. It was definitely thought-provoking and the most successful Maths and Physics class we’ve had so far (Ahem…) Here’s to a successful rest of the semester! =D
    John Gregg.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Just another random thought...
    To anyone who hasn't heard of The Game, you're about to play :P

    The rules to the game are simple:
    - You are playing the game
    - Whenever you think of the game you lose
    - You must announce that you've lost

    So besides roping you into the game or if you were already playing, making you lose the game :P, the point of my post is that The Game is not about winning. It is impossible to win - there is no rule which permits such a thing. However you can lose.
    ..Which when you think about it in most games there can be 2 outcomes: You either win or you lose (let's say for simplicity that in a game with more than 2 players, if you didn't come 1st, you lost). Similarly in this game, you either lose or you don't and you can be said to be winning whilst you're not losing. Goddamit i hate shooting down my own arguments. Or maybe i can make the point that while most other games end when you win, this one is ongoing because you can't 'win'. ...I don't know, take this rant as you will, it made sense to me at the beginning of this post...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hi,
    (Joanne) Pranee McKinlay here but I preferred to be called Pranee.

    Firstly, I'd like to say thank-you to Floyd for an extremely enjoyable lecture.

    I know my next comment is probably going to be unpopular & annoy some but I do wonder, except for the fact that physicality involves physic due to movement, friction, and the effect of gravity, etc..., I do wonder where the learning about "Maths & Physics comes into the greater picture in relation to the course content. Does this comment give me an immediate fail? Oh well, my brutal honesty wins again. I am not saying that I did not enjoy the lecture and topics discussed. I enjoyed it immensely. I just think that even though Maths is Boring and Physics is complicated (Quantum Physics is fascinating though), side-stepping the course's subject matter makes it a bit mis-leading. How will we really understand various physics engines and how they work? Not all Artists are dumb, they just think differently. Maybe I have made some incorrect assumptions too early "in the game".

    About the jacket. Cute idea but I must say that I agree with Ahn-tu's basic comments. You can not replace a hug with such a cold, technological device. My partner of over 10 years is in New Zealand, working and I am here studying which makes me a potential ideal target market. I am not sold however because technology already in place today, like Skype Video Chatting conveys the same sentiments that the jacket means to but "gives back" more to the user. I can see my beloved's facial expressions, hear the intonations in his voice, see him laugh and blow me a kiss. The Jacket would need to be developed a lot more to come close to this. Can it have a form of wireless pda inside a robotic bear where you can see your loved one, talk to them like in skype and then possible someone can send the person with the bear a signal for it to mimick a hug for a few seconds with an automatic, timed release??? That's my major thoughts on that matter.

    The problem with defining a physical game is a liguistic & symbolic issue, as some have inferred already. Our language limits us in many ways, where as our instincts and feelings don't. That is why many of us intuitively know what a physical game is but can not express it succinctly in words that all can agree on.

    Ultimately, a game, in my opinion is generally based loosely on a method or set of rules which are agreed upon by the participant/s. Physical (game)involves performing an action in the 3 Dimmensional world that we exist within and call reality which directly affects, influences & impacts the game.

    This has turned into an essay so I will stop with one last (but surely unpopular comment). Encouragement and rewards for class participation is great but if you have your hand up and you are not chosen to speak or someone else says what you were going to say, what happens then? Thanks for listening yo' all!

    ReplyDelete
  33. PS: Sorry for all my spelling & grammatical errors... me real smart and goodly at typing. If I went to Secretarial College, I would fail!!! :)

    ReplyDelete
  34. [ahh! posted it first in the wrong area >.<]

    Floyd, all I have to say is WOW! and well done.

    Your teaching style is a huge improvement on the one we have previously been experiencing this year in Maths and Physics.

    I enjoyed your lecture, especially with the amount of interactivity you had with us. It was less clinical to other lectures where you are a student among a plethora of other students all learning the same thing; we are considered individuals with names rather than student numbers, which I think allows us to feel more involved. The lecture itself was enjoyable, mentally stimulating and it kept me interested. It wasn't one of those lectures where the lecturer has a monotone voice and you are either zoning in and out thinking about other things or counting down the minutes until the lecture ends. I now look forward to maths and physics :)

    Asking us to define the term "physical gaming" made me think outside the square and not just at the obvious. I was thinking it involves action, movement... and then through the group discussion I began to think "how would this relate to physics?" And then it became apparent to me, how to define physical gaming. It was, in a sense, a challenge to develop a new and more insightful way of approaching normal everyday things with a physics and/or mathematical mindset.

    Something I didn't mention when I originally post was that personally I beleve that a physical game depends on what context inwhich you are refering it too. I agree that if we were do discuss it in terms of physics and maths it would involve concepts that are relevant to those topics. It would involve games that we, as individuals and not game characters, would apply force, momentum, or some form of "physcialy" interactive concept to achieve a desired ouotcome; albeit, shooting, running or moving an object out of our path. It is where "we" perform all the actions and not make a game character perform them as a result of a sequence of button pressing, mouse clicking or directional movement. However, physical gaming, if refered to in a general context could/may involve any form of physical movement. It may be the pressing of buttons on a keyboard to move a character, the clicking of a mouse button to shoot a character or the movement of out thumbs on the analogue controlls to a gaming console to control a character, as all these involve physical movement from a person controlling the character, but the character themselves are not exerting the effort to perform these tasks, we are as individuals.

    Defining physicial gaming may aslo depend on the individual you are asking and their exposure to the world of physical games. They may get the perception of not so much video games, but other less 'modern' games such as chess, backgammon and checkers, which still all involve some form of physical movement and interactivity.

    To conclude I would say that the term is subjected to the context inwhich you are refering it to and the individual or group that you are asking to define it.

    Ciao
    Lauren Ferro

    P.S Sorry for double posting ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  35. Oky day,
    I'm going to go ahead and say that im a bit of a word nerd and unfortunately i was tallying the stars so i didnt get a chance to formulate my two cents propperly during the "physical games" conversation.

    Anyway, Websters Revised defines 'Physical' as:
    Of or pertaining to nature (as including all created existences); in accordance with the laws of nature; also, of or relating to natural or material things, or to the bodily structure, as opposed to things mental, moral, spiritual, or imaginary; material; natural; as, armies and navies are the physical force of a nation; the body is the physical part of man.

    Basically with reference to gaming, this definition suggests that 'imaginary', which would refer to virtual or simulated environments are distinctly seperate from physical existance (obviously) suggesting that, by definition, these cannot be part of a physical game.

    I'm not entirely sure that the definition should be so cut and dry, although it does suit what im going to say;
    Wii gaming is generally seen as gaming with a large ammount of physical interaction however, without the simulated environment, there would be no game. It would just be a given number of people swinging wii-motes with no goal or objective, therefore nullifying the 'game' part of the expression. My implication here is that a game is only physical if the participant's interaction with the rules and environment is 'physical', not simulated.

    The End. :D

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Pranee, I think the whole sidestepping the course matter issue would be more of a problem if it wasn't for the simplicity of the original course material. Number systems? That's what, year eight maths? Most of the content of the previous course [before it was modi-floyd] could probably be self-taught (thank you Wikipedia), if you were of a mind.

    I feel that what little insight we may or may not be missing out on by the course change is far and away offset by the deeper understanding of our medium that these discussions have the potential to grant.

    @ Dylan

    Sadly, games do not have to be fun to be defined as a game.
    [glares across the room at Ninja-bread Man]

    -Don't judge a game by it's pun,
    Ned Kirner

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hey, Gregory S. here, (Gregg)

    Floyd I have to say, with a tear in my eye, that that was the greatest class I have ever been to, EVER.

    Don’t get me wrong the discussion was great too. Very Interesting topic, brought up many good points from the students, I myself found it very intriguing and could easily discuss it at length, however the way in which you presented it all is what really caught my eye and kept me interested.

    I found it to be an extremely enjoyable lecture. In particular, the way in which you walked up and down the class approaching those of us who were speaking. It really comes across that you are paying attention to every single one of us and that each individual opinion or remark is just as important as the next. I felt very involved with the discussion because of that and it keeps me having to follow you around so it’s never boring ;). What’s more, pictures and video in the presentation, very nice indeed. In my opinion there is nothing more boring than reading words from a slideshow, pictures and videos keep me interested and I‘m sure everyone else.

    I strongly believe that if the class continues this way, no matter what the topic is, there will always be comments and discussion taking place. A positive mood and atmosphere in a class makes for a much better learning environment.

    So thank you very much for making it so enjoyable, it really makes a difference.

    Gregory Smith
    S3233429

    ReplyDelete
  38. Jacob: Ah, I was wondering when semiotics would be mentioned... :)

    The way humans perceive and analyse information predisposes us to this kind of problem. We make sense of the world around us by categorising, by labelling, by recognising patterns. Our brains are very, very good at this. So good, in fact, that sometimes we forget that things do not actually "belong" neatly in the category we have mentally placed them in. The signifier (that is, the label) is a human construct, and the thing connoted by it is not - and was never - defined by it.

    This is why it becomes so difficult to absolutely define abstract terms like "Physical Games" - because essentially, it's not possible to come up with an absolute solution.

    We have a tendency to think it's the label that is the problem - we think we can "fix" it if we think hard enough; our definition must just need fine tuning. We think we're making the definition fit the object - when really we are trying to force an object into a definition.

    So, the short version is: There is no absolute definition for physical games. As Chad mentioned above, we can all define it on subjective terms, we might even agree on some points - personally I agree with Daniel's definition in the lecture - but we will never find an absolute definition.

    As for the Hug Jacket:
    The Hug Jacket was cute, but it is a signifier for the idea of intimacy, and is not intimate in itself. As somebody else mentioned, we already have other methods of communication which can be used to convey the idea of intimacy over distance (email, SMS, even hand written letters...), and I do not believe the Hug Jacket is any more intimate than these methods. It is just a tactile facsimile of something that is.

    Lisa Dyball

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hi just a comment about the lecture on the 16 of April, yes it is a great idea to force student participation. (A comment not being sarcastic) Only problem is I should start voicing out my ideas. I guess maybe you should randomly pick someone as well as at times some students may be shy but may have great ideas their afraid to voice out.

    As for the jacket, I thought it was a great idea only that it is not very practical. Im not going to wear it all day, it is expensive etc.

    Thats all for now. Hope I will elaborate more in my comments in the future.

    Thanks,
    Gan

    ReplyDelete
  40. I think the lecture challenged our minds and opinions allowing everyone to discuss and argue their views. I enjoyed the way that the class got involved in an activity causing everyone to take part and give an opinion. Once the class ended it was fulfilling because it felt as though we actually learnt something.

    My definition of a 'physical game' is something that involves movement within the individual playing the game and it doesn't necessarily mean only in the physical world because it can also be done in the virtual world. An example of this is most of the Wii games, they use physical movements to control the actions in the game. My conclusion is that a physical game cannot be completely defined because different people have different mind sets that control what it is and there will always be new things that will challenge the idea.

    I also think that 20% on the discussion in class is a bit unfair cause some people are naturally louder and give there opinion, and others that struggle to speak up will end up getting a bad mark.

    Keep up the good work Floyd, look forward to the next class to see how you challenge us next.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hey there, it's Raphael here, or call me Cactus for a simpler nick. Didn't read much of the above comments, huge walls of texts, but i'll get to it, pretty sure my ideas have been mentioned somewhere in there.

    For me, a physical game is really a game which requires a Physical Input which affect the output directly, thus a connection between the player's movements, and actions to the game are much much closer.

    In traditional sports, say Football, we kick a ball, physics has it shoot up in the air, smacking some heads along the way.
    Input : Kick (Physical Manifestation)
    Output: Ball flies (Physical Manifestation)

    However, in video games, the transition of the player's input should be closer related to the actions of the player controlled unit. Now, what i'm saying is, sure, on the PC/XBOX/PS we click buttons and the PC is affected, does an action, but the button pushes aren't even close to lets say reloading a gun, jumping, walking.

    The Wii however(assuming we all agree), is a more physical console, because, when we play a boxing game, we jab, when we play a fishing game, we reel in the fish with them nunchucks. And in most cases, we flail around like a maniac in a strafe jacket, at least i do.....

    Another point, let's take Laser tag and compare it with Time Crisis, both are on the same concepts, we take the gun and pull the trigger, but in Laser Tag we run around. All this means is the experience in Laser Tag won't be as linear as Time Crisis, more to the point, don't we all agree Laser tag is more physical than Time Crisis?
    To me, that is because the player's physical actions all have more involvement in the game, instead of aiming at a screen, we run, another physical action we perform to influence the game. Honestly, i'd put Time crisis near the par of many FPSs.

    Last point i wanna make, the output of a video game is mostly virtual, and i believe this will not affect whether the game is physical or not. Example: Playing with remote tanks that fire BBs just uses your thumbs on a remote, the output/result is physical, that doesn't change the fact it is a non-physical game.

    As for the jacket, i haven't much comments, but maybe it could be used in Virtual games? But what i was thinking it could be used like a voodoo doll, make it full body and use a voodoo doll as a remote, squeeze the arms etc. And this could be used in massage parlors, apply the vests on all the customers, and you only need one person to do the massaging, link them all to one person.

    Onto the class, in 3 words, Floyd you rock. Don't feel like a lecture, feels like super phun tyme. Downside is that i was hoping to use that Wii there, i also found it hard to find a group outside of a lecture, and all in all, i commented but no star fer poor old me...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Basically i screened through most of the comments, and i must say, Yeah, Chad nailed it, he covered all my points. But still, i feel that the button input systems are just about as physical as rock paper scissors, i mean, rock paper scissors just has a physical representation (visual) , the most physical thing is swinging your arm down, which isn't even a part of the game.

    Also, can't stress enough on how amazing the class is, just plain awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Physicality in Games

    I really enjoyed the class Floyd. It has had me thinking the entire week. I’m really enjoying the idea of taking discussions outside of class.

    Physicality in interactive media is incredibly difficult to define. Is it the physical reaction or the virtual reaction that governs what we call a physical game? The truth is the definition is governed by parameters and rules, which constantly change. Technology is an example of one of those rules. When you think about “gaming” when our grandparents where young a physical game could have been defined quite easily. The process was enacted physically, the calculations where done personally and the results where demonstrated literally. These days the term “physical gaming” has become skewed due to the increase in rules, which contradict the implied meaning of physicality morphing it into something entirely different. At this current time, by logical definition a physical game does not contrive input from anything that can’t be varied physically. This draws the line quite plainly between games you would see on the Wii and a similar game enjoyed on the Xbox or pc. The ‘Tiger Woods’ golf game is an example of a game that demonstrates across mediums, changes from physical to non-physical gameplay. On the Wii, a literal motion determines the input and the input calculated is varied dependent on your relevant individual strength. The same motion enacted out on a control pad on the Xbox, is not relevant because your strength is assumed, the button press acting as a proxy to a parallel real life activity. The latter version cannot be defined as a physical game because the input is not a literal variable; it is a pre-determined function that is derived from an assumption. This assumption removes the player enough for it to be considered “virtual”.

    This hypothesis is all under the consideration that the term ”game” is already defined. Which is an entirely different beast, equally as hard to trap.

    Michele s3197203

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hi its lawrence here

    From my point of view in Physicality in Games incorporate few points such as it does not really have to be everyone start to move around and play certain games but it can be also be a person playing arcade games,console games and handheld games which all of us been question by Floyd why none of us start to take out their ndsl , psp and etc to play?

    For example

    *Kinematics
    -Acceleration
    1)if you play dragon ball GT (PS1)before, you have to press a certain button on your joystick as fast as you could to repel the "full blast of power" . In this case which in my opinion , it can be describe for Physicality in Games by pressing analog joystick
    2)Also, in a game called Dance Dance Revolution(dancing game for most console). You have to jump on the (jumping pad... sorry doesn't really know what is the term for it) or press the joystick to win the game. this game is also based on acceleration on every players.

    Besides than Physicality Games, as for the vest video that is shown and discussed during early of the class, i agree with what Anh-tu said which hug really cant be replace with the vest because there will be no more intimacy.Other than that, i dont know whether this already been told in the class yet but in my opinion,

    -What if there are bugs with the system ? i guess the vest will keep on blowing which normally technology will never be perfect (my opinion) just like computers (so-called greatest invention) are suffering from bugs.
    -What if the another person who wants to trick you and keep pressing and blow your vest up like for 24/7 until you get your vest off
    -Who knows if the "person" really want to hug you? or they might just be just press as path of their daily routine?

    Last but not least, just like dooshie said Floyd is one of the greatest lecturer i met so far. The main point i like is Floyd start to pick randomly and ask a question which this may get rid of boring among students and might even get more attention from students.

    PS. if i ever offend someone`s feeling here, i`m sorry

    Lawrence Wong
    s3175889

    ReplyDelete
  45. Chris Tran - s3200763
    the last lecture was very interactive which got every member in the course to get involved and speak thier minds. hearing everyone's opinion on what a physical game actually was was pretty interesting and it was great to hear different perceptions on the subject. i didn't have anything to say but it was a good chat.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Adrienne Giuliano s3236467April 21, 2009 at 8:11 PM

    Hey, it's Adrienne Giuliano s3236467 here.

    I found the last lecture not only far more interesting than my previous experiences, but also mentally stimulating. It really made me reconsider what I define as a 'physical game', as well I like the interactive level that gets us all to voice our own thoughts and opinions. It was a refreshingly different experience that I felt allowed us all to look at the proposed concept from other people's perspectives and evaluate our own. Overall I thought last lecture was awesome. Thankyou Floyd for enlightening us all O__^

    Cheers

    Adrienne

    ReplyDelete
  47. My ‘Reflection’ (16/4/09):

    So, the only thing I could think about during the discussion of the hug vest was
    What if the vest-wearer was being unfaithful and was already being physically hugged when the vest is activated and starts to inflate? Would the vest explode? Would the wearer explode?

    After a bit more thought,
    I think it seems a bit unnatural to be wearing the vest constantly and randomly getting hugs without any prior warning. I think that communication between the two people needs to be established first to make it feel more natural and realistic through, like it was mentioned in the class discussion, something like a phone call, instant message or video call. Therefore the vest would be used to enhance the conversation – like extreme emoticons or MSN’s ‘wink’ and ‘nudge’. If it were to be used in this way, I think it would be more appropriate for both interlockers to wear the vest and it would be activated through the instant messenger interface, for example.


    In general, I thought the lecture was really great, and, being a first year straight from school, unlike anything I’ve ever seen before.
    [The only thing I didn’t like is this whole ‘teams’ thing - it’s very stressful trying to form two different teams when you don’t really know anyone]

    - Kalonica Quigley

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Bugger the lecture content, I just like the accent.

    Lisa, if you weren't already in a relationship, I'd totally do your taxes. All night.

    Though I completely agree with your comment (except for the jacket bit), a few specific things bugged me:

    The way humans perceive and analyse information predisposes us to this kind of problem. We make sense of the world around us by categorising, by labelling, by recognising patterns. Our brains are very, very good at this. So good, in fact, that sometimes we forget that things do not actually "belong" neatly in the category we have mentally placed them in. The signifier (that is, the label) is a human construct, and the thing connoted by it is not - and was never - defined by it.

    If I get this right, you're arguing that objects have an intrinsic value that arbitrary definitions do not properly convey, that things exist outside of their labels and that categorisation is just an inconvenient habit of humanity, and something we have a choice in doing. I happily disagree with all of that. Some dead old white guy said that binary categories make us human - that the most essential part of being a person is sorting things into good/bad, black/white dichotomies. That sounds about right to me. So though labels are a human construct, it's impossible to think any other way. Some other old white guy said that things don't exist without signifiers, arguing that labels and objects are pretty much stuck together and can never be considered as seperate beings. (Not that there's not a real world out there, but we humans are always going to have a brain in the way.)

    So I disagree when you say that the definition can never fit the object - I disagree there's an object to fit and that defining it is purely voluntary. But your broader point - that categorisation is always limited and flawed - I'll shout from rooftops.

    As for the Hug Jacket:
    The Hug Jacket was cute, but it is a signifier for the idea of intimacy, and is not intimate in itself. As somebody else mentioned, we already have other methods of communication which can be used to convey the idea of intimacy over distance (email, SMS, even hand written letters...), and I do not believe the Hug Jacket is any more intimate than these methods. It is just a tactile facsimile of something that is.


    But you're arguing that objects contain intrinsic meaning without the input of humans. You're proposing a scale of "realness" with face-to-face interaction at the top and the jacket at the bottom. But no-one's saying we should replace "real" hugs with clunky outerwear, just that this particular thing might be another way to express something already present. It's like having 200 words for "snow" - the presence of one way of communicating does not diminish another. Instead, everything becomes more nuanced.

    In my little box of po-mo, where signified and signifier are a lovely mess, everything is a copy, and fake, and broken anyway. So bugger if it's real or not. I still want one in orange.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Damn thing kept posting without any line breaks.
    My name is Kimberley Grace Daniel, s3233986.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Pranee here,
    I love so many of the comments, I could spend hours replying to them, but won't, sorry. (Too much other stuff to do)
    I need to complete my group of 5 for the second assignment. So far there's
    1) My, myself & I
    2) Cherie Davidson (You wrote Davidso in my diary?)
    3) Jin Wang (if that's you with the karing.j e-mail which is wrong and was returned to me :()

    and Ned... are you in or on another boat???

    and the guy with the hat, the black one that does digital arts and I introduced to a Game Studio group, we want you? Ned does particularily, he's all hot & sweaty at the thought of working with you...are you free? (sorry I forgot your name) Do you wanna play with us??? Please post back if you get this...
    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  53. hi,
    I like the idea for the jacket being a virtual human hug. The idea really illustrates features of interaction and technology. The jacket replaces physical human hugs by blowing air inside of jacket automatically when user’s emotion is happy. It’s quite cool when applying technology in daily life. If only one jacket and one user could enjoy that moment, it is not enough feeling !!! . I think you can create interaction between human by creating jacket with some kind of built-in detector that is able to detect each other matching personality and acknowledge the jacket owner of nearby individual with matching personality. Because of the cost of high-tech jacket can be expensive (I think) to lower and middle classes, the market target of this jacket could be limited.

    In reality, I think that people would like to hug a real person they love to rather than having a jacket “hug” them!!! I prefer to hug a real person because jacket could not bring facial emotions/expression of human.

    The main topic in this lecture is about Physicality and Games. When Floyd said “ get up and play Physical game”. I was confused, looked the screen with a text “Physical game” and wondered myself: What is definition of Physical game ? I had just thought and look around, my friends were playing “physical game” for instance school games, interaction each other by body…blah blah. All of them started moving and I start to move myself. I thought I was right with this definition… but not enough…

    After hints from Floyd and discussion of class, I realize “Physical Game” could be defined as: games involve body movements of activities with rules, interaction between player and at least one or more objects/ players. Physical games is not only in reality (e.g. school game) but also is using in virtual (e.g. virtual games). Therefore, to me, the definition of Physical Game depends on what, where and how do you want to use it!

    Comparing to the previous Math and Physic lectures, the lecture “Physicality and Games” was great. The lecture brought to student a fresh “breath”, a fun and exciting environment, and also woke up student with interesting discussions. It’s true that when I was in other lecture I was often getting bored and disappointed. And, last week lecture is opposite generally. Thanks a lot to Floyd giving us a chance to think critically, brainstorm, say and discuss!!!!!

    I preferred the way Floyd teach us too, however, sometimes when I put my hand up to ask a question or to contribute my own idea and I didn’t get picked…..how do I feel !?!?!..... The contribution in class discussion is worth 30%....

    Cheers,

    Thao Uyen T - s3242198

    ReplyDelete
  54. A few people here so far have related their arguments to the Wii when trying to describe a physical game. However the Wii is only partially there, its a video game that simply requires more physical interaction then that of most PC games.

    For a video game to be labelled as a whole and true physical game it requires so many elements that are completely lost in the virtual world.
    Wii tennis for example, yeah you have to swing the remote in time with the ball but what about all the other elements? The hot court underneath your feet, the weight of your racket and the force of the ball connecting against it.

    For a game to be physical there is no need for technology, and if we create a virtual game of tennis that exactly simulates one in real life, then whats the point? you might aswell go outside and play a real damn game of tennis and save the couple of hundred dollars.

    Video games aren't meant to be physical, they are the escape from the world around us. Why would we want to create physical games when everything needed has allready been created for us?

    Dominic Atta - s3160832

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hoi, everyone. My name's Nicholas, just call me Nick if you're lazy to pronounce more than one syllable. First, I'd like to say that I appreciate the enthusiasm displayed by Floyd. His style of teaching certainly galvanated the entire room of us games students the other evening.

    Second, I find the idea of contributing in class to be worth 30% highly intimidating. While I do not entirely appreciate the way he sort of forces (encourages would be a better word here I'm sure) all students to speak up with opinions on the lecture, I still believe that at the end of the day those students benefit from the experience, as do the others.

    I also like the way his first lecture got our heads thinking about what does or does not count as a "physical game", or even a "game". Surely we can't make games if we don't have a firmer understanding of what it is that we're making.


    Concerning the Hug Jacket device:

    I think it is just an accessory that in no way REPLACES actual human contact. Instead, like most other technological methods of communication like email, chatting online, SMSes and the humble (yet potently useful break-up method) phone, the Hug Jacket seeks to compensate for the lack of close contact, and attempt to link two human beings who wish to be more constantly reminded of each other's mutual affection. If the Jacket were linked to appropriate VIRTUAL online gestures like sending a "Hug" or a "Nudge" to replicate the gesture PHYSICALLY, instead of just doing a single hug, it'd be much more useful, as said by others before me.

    Alone, however, the Hug Jacket is potential mood killer, what with the alarmingly loud activation sounds. It definitely needs to be more discreet, eventhough the actual physical embrace of two or more individuals is out for all to see. Just my opinion though.

    Concerning "Physical Games"

    To me, the word physical implies that one uses their body and most of their limbs to perform an action.

    A game to me, is in short, an activity which generates fun, entertainment and involves a competition or conflict. Now, I believe that a game can be played alone, but best with others. Also, for there to be conflict or competition, there must be a winner and a loser, and sometimes games end up in a draw as both players are equally matched or certain circumstances have resulted in a tie. For the games to work, there must be rules and codes of conduct to adhere to, otherwise any player can do something completely random and illegal in terms of play. (I apologise for a possibly too-brief personal definition of a game, but I find that my mind is rather stumped at the moment for more words.)

    Therefore, the term "Physical Game" implies that one or more players have engaged in an activity in which rules and codes of conduct are required, and the actual involvement of players requires them to use their limbs and ligaments to perform ACTUAL PHYSICAL MOVEMENTS in real life, as opposed to using ligaments like thumbs and fingers to send signals to a device which then performs VIRTUAL MOVEMENTS OR ACTIONS for the player on a screen.

    The Wii has certainly blurred the line between virtual games and the aforementioned "Physical Game", as it involves a wide variety of actual physical movement on the part of the player, which are strangely enough (at least to a more traditional keyboard and mouse gamer like me)REPLICATED on-screen in the sports games like bowling and tennis.


    Concerning why all of us actually got off our bums and seemed to know what is a "Phyiscal Game"

    (* As all of us grew up and eventually learned how to use our muscles to move out limbs and ligaments, we naturally assumed that physical games did indeed involve getting up and moving about without having our PHYSICAL actions re-interpreted as VIRTUAL actions. Instead, when playing so-called Physical Games, our movements are in the manner of what-you-see-is-what-you-get.)

    Concerning the fact that we have NO EXAMS

    EEEEXCELLENT, DUDE


    As a final note for now, I would like to apologise for my generous use of the caps lock. I was merely concerned that typing a reasonably large chunk of text all at once would bore the heck out of any readers, so the caps lock was used to help mix things up a bit, and more importantly, highlight the more important points I wished to express. Until next time, have a nice day, everyone.

    Nicholas Lim Chong Hock,
    S3186372,
    Games Graphics Design Student.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Gah. I missed last weeks class and I felt like I missed a year's worth of classes.

    Haha, Will catch up!

    And btw, email me I need a group!

    twp1989@gmail.com -or-
    s3193654@student.rmit.edu.au

    ReplyDelete
  57. Hello, I wasn't actually there on the last class, and all of the positive feedback I've recieved from friends -- not to mention this blog -- has really got me looking forward to the next class!

    ReplyDelete
  58. btw, pranee? do you still need that group member? *raises hand frantically*

    ReplyDelete
  59. this is the exact same comment i posted in a different area but then found everyone was posting here so i thought id move it just in case... was quite an engaging lecture wasnt it . of all the lectures iv had so far it was one of the few that i didnt completly zone out for, it was interactive and gave us something to think about that stimulated our minds in a positive manner....wooooo plus it seemed to have some direction where previous seemed to fumble over themselves alot ..i really enjoyed the topic and look forward to more stimulating discussions and debates ...but i did find that it was abit fast paced and was quite confused at the of the lecture about what group went where and did....... what when with who??.........although a fast paced lecture might keep our brains active, it seemed like if you missed something someone said...than by the time you realised it they had already moved on and you have no idea about whats goin on...hmmmmmmm..any way looking forward to next lecture....this is my comment

    ReplyDelete
  60. Damien Gatt here, i thought the lecture was pretty cool, definitely different to other lectures ive had. The discussion about physical games was insightful peoples raised a few interesting responses which brought a new understanding for me, how physical and virtual can be combined together.

    As for the inflatable hug thingy that's intense, pretty cool idea. However as some dude said you cant replace a hug with technology it wouldn't have the same response and wouldn’t have the same comfort i guess

    First attempt to post this was on the 16th but my com don't like this blogspot and won't post so this was posted from elsewhere later on.

    Damien Gatt s3235475

    ReplyDelete
  61. hi this is Cheung Yi kai s3232755. You can call me Jason

    I believe anything involve physics. E.g. Weight and motion. Everything we do is physical, even when standing. And nowadays many physics can be translated into new technology...including games. And my definition of a physical game is anything involves physics. And I believe there are 3 different kinds. Like Wii, iphone, NDS. They are the most obvious as a physical game because they use physical METHOD to control the game. But it doesn't mean a game involving clicking mouse or pressing button cannot be a physical game. Some games like Half Life 2, world of goo have a lot of physics IDEAS integrated into its game play and programming. They don't need to use a great deal of energy or movement, but Players still need to THINK about a lot of physical Methods to achieve goals within the game. Using a mouse to swing a sword is just less physical than swing a real sword. I also believe games with the SENSE of physics can be a physical game too. E.g. Loco Roco will give you the sensation that of the physics of bouncing and rolling around. And in God of War, you will feel like you are physically opening the doors or pushing the boss by using all your energy pressing the buttons until your finger cramps up. In the lecture, when we all are told to stand up and play a physical game. We all automatically think about games
    Like slap, thumb wars, arms wrestling...etc. but we all forgot about the wii right in front of us. I agree with some comments that suggested that we all are limited by our culture and our habits. We all thought wii,NDS and iphone...etc are not physical because it doesn’t involve the physical strain or movement as much. I also think because arm wrestling, thumb wars is the game that everyone knew and we all have hands to play it. They are easy to start not like Wii, iphone. They are kind of new and not everyone can have one.

    Lastly, the idea of the hug vest idea is not a good product right now... maybe in the future when u can make the vest smaller and more action. It will be too expensive to make this right now and i believe it will feel scary and look awful. But I think to create a vest like that is an awesome idea to open up the world of technology and gaming, and it reminds me of the matrix (physical response to digital world)

    ReplyDelete
  62. btw.... the new math and physics class give me a lot of stress and pressure. I will be so nervous thinking what i should say in the lecture with my crappy English.

    well.. here is Australia and i am here to learn.
    I believe this will help me improve sooooo much and this is gonna be the most useful lecture to fix my weakness :D Good job Floyd!

    cheung yi kai (jason)s3232755

    ReplyDelete
  63. Hello,
    I posted a comment earlier this week but it seems it didn't get through. This is the shortened version.

    Lecture
    - lecture was awesome because:
    - it was interactive
    - i was interesting

    - lecture could have been improved by
    - it was pretty good, but about 20 minutes into "defining what physical game is" it started getting a bit tedious, i would've preferred to hear more about your work in using colored balls to control UT3

    Physical Game: (My definition)

    - there has to be significant movement/force applied
    - so moving your fingers to press buttons doesn't count.
    - however moving your fingers in a 'thumb wars' situation would.

    - physical attributes (strength,stamina,agility,speed) would have to play a significant part of the game.

    - motion tracking is a bit of a grey area depending on whether you classify it as a user interface (eg colored ball UT3), or physical game, such as DARK ZONE (its like indoor paintball with lasers, you have sensors on your shoulders, chest, back witch tell you when you have been hit.)

    - i would have liked to go for a round of dark zone or paint ball when we were instructed to play a physical game but i was lacking the equipment and designated area free of old ladies and little children who don't like me shooting lasers, paint balls and such at them without getting sued.

    Commenting other peoples comments.

    Cheung Yi kai - "I also believe games with the SENSE of physics can be a physical game too"

    I see where your coming from ,however arguably most games barring casual and some puzzle games have some form of physics such as gravity. Sure, its constant but its there. I would say that there is a difference between a physics game (such as garry's mod, etc) and a physical game such as Dark zone.

    Nicholas Lim - "I think it is just an accessory that in no way REPLACES actual human contact."

    It's possible to replace human contact, whats impossible at this time is to replace the emotion associated with human contact.

    Dominic Atta - "you might aswell go outside and play a real damn game of tennis and save the couple of hundred dollars."

    Have you tried playing Need for Speed or Manhunt in real life...


    I'll continue with the commenting of comments at a later point, as im running late for programming.


    Before i forget.
    The Hug Jacket

    - Interesting concept.
    - Personally i don't see a target market for it:
    - because the cost (effort of putting it on) isn't worth the benefit (simulated hug, from a cold machine).

    I believe i heard somebody said make it into a blow up doll. Well i think it should be taken a step further.

    - many people don't pay for hugs.
    - a lot of people pay for sex

    - business men/women have money
    - business men/women are usually on the go
    - therefore not having sex

    So in all seriousness, I propose the hugging vest be converted into a sex toy.

    Using a mobile phone or internet (possibly using some form of video chat) Sex toy 1 would be able to connect with sex toy 2. Each device has both an input (sensors) and an output (vibration).

    The comparative advantages would be:

    - smaller size/more concealable than a vest
    - easier to vibrate than to inflate
    - it more gratifying to recreate the feeling of sex rather than that of a hug.

    The comparative disadvantages would be:

    - the taboo surrounding sex toys would limit its sale to adult stores.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Just on the definition of "physical game":
    1. Maybe it would help if we think about its apparent opposite: mind games. "Mind games" is a much more commonly used phrase, and so might have a more agreeable definition.
    2. In the same way, maybe the physical game is something that not all people can play (people in a coma, the bedridden, the severely paralysed, etc.) while the mind game is something everyone can play, by definition. Because anyone who can't play a mind game (the brain-dead, for example), isn't really a person.
    3. But like Jason above, I think I'll give up and say everything is a physical game, because we live in physical bodies. Even dreams involve brain chemicals.



    So in all seriousness, I propose the hugging vest be converted into a sex toy.

    Using a mobile phone or internet (possibly using some form of video chat) Sex toy 1 would be able to connect with sex toy 2. Each device has both an input (sensors) and an output (vibration).


    It's already been done.

    ReplyDelete
  65. wow, i probably should have posted my comment earlier and not leave it to the last minute as i have a very bad short term memory so..here goes...from what i can remember the lecture's main discussion was about physical games and its meaning. To me, the player themselves, their "body" can be considered as a physical entity and thus when you said "play a physical game" everyone played games that involved physical contact that alowed their bodies to move in some sort of way, i think its because we view ourselves as something physcial and the term physical often relates to body activity (like physical education), and then theres the other type of physical that appears in a virtue way, for example you can play the same game like thumbwar or clapping but if its done virtually like as pc game or something..is that still a physcial game? hmmmm. Also you can play games on devices like psp, iphone etc (this is what i prefer), and these are all "physical" items and relates to the idea that physicality simply means soemthing hat exists and can be touched ;physically existing (i think someone mentioned this during the lecture)
    well, the dictionary defines "physical" as "Any entities which are composed of matter and/or energy, as well as the physical properties of those entities; and not merely items of thought or belief" so that means its something solid and existing? if thats the case then physical game is basically playing and enjoying a game that involves the utilization of a physical matter? such as body parts or electronic devices and such things....hmmm, i'm pretty confused but yeah, theres my comment.

    As for the jacket; very interesting idea, i think its a good way to connect people together when apart but...i think in terms of marketing appeal it would look better if it wasn't a scary looking bullet proof arm vest...instead maybe a nice shirt....perhapse pink?

    ReplyDelete
  66. I think the attraction for physical gaming, is not the technology itself, but the ability to artificially recreate a human experience. Of which we don't consciously see the reason behind.

    I think its interesting but, destroying what we have as human beings. How we can socially interact with each other. Is that connection to be replaced by a computer?

    I agree that vests that hug will never fully have the same value as a 'real' hug.
    but I see the sentiment behind the idea, one that has the physical characteristics to satisfy someones curiosity if a loved one is thinking of them.

    overall.
    I found it an incredibly interesting lecture.
    The class debate was fantastic.
    And there is a lot more philosophy behind this subject :)

    Courtney

    ReplyDelete
  67. First of all, I'll apologize for submitting this so late. I wanted to read everyone else's comments, and indeed it was worth it.

    The Lecture Style:
    Mind stimulating, I like the way Floyd tries to involve everyone, and get the class discussion things with one another. There are no 'islands' in this class. It's a bit like a mind tank really. I'm quite a shy person, but hopefully this will force me to be more open. I do have some concerns with that though, as some others have also voiced, what happens if you don't get picked to speak, and then the topic moves on? Also I noticed occasionally people are misunderstood by one another.
    I agree with what Vlad said. After 20 mins of trying to define the undefinable, the conversation became dry and tedious. It had become squabbles over small technicalities.

    The Lecture Content:
    Although rather intriguing, I must ask, where is the maths and physics? Physicality and physics, albeit similar, are not the same. I have to admit I was looking forward to a more maths and physics oriented subject. Physicality (in reference to video games) is a little to close to physical education (in reference to video games) for my comfort.
    From what I've gathered from the first lecture and assignments, this class is more a discussion of the where the games industry is headed in terms of interactivity, rather than how maths and physics are relevant to (game) artists/designers.

    The Long Distance Hug:
    When we were asked about it, it came down to: would it sell, how could it be improved, and then later, what is it trying to achieve. Floyd himself dodged questions about it's purpose/how he got funding, so to us, who know little about it, it could be anything. My personal opinion, is that even though it's novelty, and would help express emotions over distance, it couldn't possibly be as connecting as looking someone in the eye over a web cam, and telling them you miss them and wished you could hug them. It's like buying a plastic hand and shaking it every time you meet someone new online; there's no satisfaction and almost no meaning behind it.
    That said, if Floyd had've got the funding to make two, then the product becomes less unreasonable. With two there's the natural response for a hug to be returned, and from what I know of hugs, they're as much about giving as receiving. As I said in the lecture (and got shot down), the koala should be huggable, not just a touch screen. Floyd didn't explain why he bought it and attached the screen to it- but here's what I think: If you're just hitting a button on a PC or a Mobile Phone, there really isn't anything human about 'sending' the hug. But if there's a cute fuzzy bear, then all the sudden there's this childhood connection to soft toys equalling love (and thus hugs). So you're talking to someone on the internet/phone, and you decide you want to hug from across the world, you both throw on the jackets and hug the bears - bingo, a somewhat reasonable mimic of a human hug. I think the more important part of this is that you're already conversing with someone. No one would go walking around in the street with that bulky loud jacket on, in the hope someone might send them a hug, they'd want to emotionally connect with someone first. Even then it's a bit of a stretch to say people would buy it.
    [/rant]
    In conclusion, no one would buy it unless very very cheap, and even then, they may not use it. The point of the jacket it to make someone feel loved, and to know they're not alone, even though the world separates them from their loved one. However, this can be just as easily accomplished through chatting on the phone, an instant messaging service, but most of all web cams

    Physical Games:
    After having the time to think about it, and reading through everyone comments, it's safe to say we know all know what a physical game is. Well actually, didn't we already know that subconsciously?
    We were asked for a black and white definition of 'physical games' - something which doesn't exist. His goal was to make us think about terminology and word associations.
    For much of the lecture we tried to define 'physical game' even though we all already knew what it was. I me, I know this knowledge stemmed from the word physical. My mind associated physical game with physical education - a core subject of schooling until year 10, which involves running around and basically getting fit while having fun.
    Of course, this web of brain associations would be different for everyone, but we all seemed to arrive in the same place: standing up, doing something that uses as has as much energy and muscle usage as possible (e.g. I would've played tag, but you can't really run around in that tiny theater)
    When someone said that movement plus entertainment was a physical game, someone else replied that then, since you could count moving your eyes is a motor function, watching a movie could be labeled a 'physical game'.
    So obviously the line cannot be drawn at 'movement' you can't say, if you burn over 5 calories an hour doing it and have fun, it's a physical game.
    I guess Chad's argument sums everything I would say. Game is an ever changing word. However, when told the word game I don't immediately think of video games as Chad suggested. I think of the genre. Like when people say movie, I don't think of drama or action, just the broad range. The 'genre' in this case was 'physical': it was movement. In the lecture, people realized physicality is movement of the body, and stood up. The exaggerated the movement, the more 'physical' they were being. And since it was the only adjective on the word game, the movement needed to be exaggerated (thus no one just twiddled their thumbs on a DS).
    Just to add to what Chad said about cultures: consider how an American would interpret the word 'Thong'. As an Australian I think of a type of shoe. However, they would think of the type of underwear.

    I want to challenge why everyone kept saying a game needs to have a winner and a loser. I don't believe it needs those at all. There just has to be a way of winning or losing. (Word play? You getting me? =P). As I kid I would hang off the edge of a pool and try to hold my breath for as long as possible. I call this a game, not playing. Playing has no winners or losers. If I held my breath for longer than a certain amount of time, then I've achieved my goal, and I've 'won', even though I was playing alone. Alternatively, if I wasn't under long enough, (or I drowned), I lost. When Dylan posted the rules to "The Game" (ha! got ya everyone), he also brought up that you don't have to be able to win. You just have to be able to win OR lose.

    And now I'll apologize for this being a huge huge huge meaningless rant.
    I think I went way off topic.
    =P Oh well. I've run out of time.
    See you all in the lecture.

    Cherie Davidson

    ReplyDelete
  68. just commenting about last lecture. i really like the new teaching style. i think everyone gets more out of the class and overall it is much more enjoyable.

    discussing "physical games" was really interesting. I don't think it is something that has a set definition, and it leads to really interesting debate.

    i liked that you engaged the class about their opinions on the "hug jacket", i don't think it is commercially viable, but it is a pretty interesting concept.

    Rhys

    ReplyDelete
  69. hey, floyd you are legend!i quite like how we all get to interact with each other more through class discussions its good for everyone to get there thoughts and opinons out there.
    i thought your hugging jacket thingyo was fabulous, even though the guy in middle row was all you cant replace intimacy with a jacket that squeezes you,its the sentimental thought that counts its better than being cold and alone. And as for physical games, we never sat aorund playing video games in Physical Education in high school. this one time in health we had to do an assignment on a physical game i asked to do chess and my teacher said no thats not phyisical it has to involve getting out and moving.. there really is no point to me saying that coz my teacher was a fag but yeah sitting infront of the tube twiddling your thumbs over a controller is not physical jsut coz your thumbs are moving. wii sport would be physical though coz you can jump around and get puffed.
    the end.Amanda JOYYYYY bailey

    ReplyDelete
  70. Ben Goodvach-DraffinApril 29, 2009 at 9:27 AM

    I posted this in the wrong area it seems...umm so it was done ages ago..

    In terms of the lecture itself, i really enjoyed the interactivity of it, and nice work Floyd on somehow making it work with 70 odd people.

    It seems the basis of lecture revolved slightly around whether the "Hug At A Distance" was actually what the public wanted. And revolved a little more around what is "Physical Gaming".

    In terms of "Hug At A Distance"(HAD), I had a fair bit of trouble understanding just why someone would realistically want such a thing. Yeah, it was beautiful in its sentimentality. But when it boils down, it's another way of saying i'm "thinking of you" and expressing it through a technological outlet. There are a few other things that do this, these being:
    Telephone, Email, SMS, written letters, couriered roses and having an aeroplane write sweet nothings in smoke to name a few.
    Marketing wise, well, it was never meant to be a product for the masses (i think). So it's not really an issue. But considering the grant to create this thing was probably somewhere between $5000 and $20 000, it probably isn't that affordable to the average family.
    OK so the HAT is an instantaneous form of expression and all it is supposed to represent is ones emotion to another, which i guess to a certain extent it does. But there are that many different ways of doing this already, i don't think in terms of technology that we need another at this point. Maybe when holograms or some such are invented then yeah sure, knock yourself out. In the mean time, maybe just hug a pillow.

    So, whats physical gaming? When we were told to stand up and do something physical, yes, we all moved.
    Someone mentioned this being due to popular culture, and in my opinion it hits the nail on the head pretty succinctly.
    After say 1995, which was the release of ID's "Doom" on PC - when digital games first really came apparent to the general media) and before 8/12/2006 (The release of the Wii in its major markets).
    If someone said i play games, most people would assume it was a computer game.
    If someone said i play physical games, most people would probably think it's something to do with physical theatre and stage play.
    And thats pretty much how contemporary culture had defined the two ideas.

    Now, we had a little class discussion about whats physical, and whats gaming. The end result being that it was physical if more action occurred in real life rather than within the media system. And it was a game if it had rules.

    Enter the Wii. And here is where having it set up in our lecture theatre, it made a really nice point. The Wii, which has an equal amount of physical and digital action is sort of the epitome of physical gaming. Unless you bring games like billiards or foosball into it...because they're games...and not sports...and they're physical...

    But to summarise there it is,
    Wii == Physical Gaming

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  71. I am not convinced that the physical play behind the Wii, enhances any kind emotional investment in game play, in contrast to any non physical game. I think the Wii (or any other physical simulation game) has not been fully developed to the absolute potential of the concept. While it has been proven that over a long period of time, the Wii produces physical weakness simular to that attained from actual sports. If the Wii can increase the physical and mental alertness and strength of individuals; in however disabled or fragile states, or enhance surgical abilities or advance research into medicine, then I would say it has met the standard.

    It’s comparatively new to start to question gaming in modern human civilization. Gaming itself, even being so new and guiltless it has occupied an audience that continues to grow beyond comprehension. I believe that Michel (I’m not sure exactly how to spell your name sorry! I know it’s not pronounced Michael so there is my shot) scraped the surface on why games attract us. What is the draw to the outwardly strange device that makes us want to play it?

    I can only really relate this to the experience I have learnt with my own personal life in the growing hobby. Scientific quotes are relatively few and mostly based on assumption that one can only narrate what their familiarity is in relevance to the lecture on Thursday night.

    Scientifically games produce little difference than anti-stress devices. Actively categorising those into other actions such as smoking, sports, getting high on drugs and other various activities that make them feel better than they already are. Gaming is essentially this and it’s easier to see why people who game are just as susceptible to addiction as they are to any of the listed previously.

    Even with sports, the Wii Sports range all coincides with this. Most people would agree that sky diving, base jumping or bungee are all classified as ‘high thrilled’, those would also agree that in order to compete as a professional in competitions with high thrilled sports, adrenaline plays a huge part in an addiction to the sport, that these thrill seekers have their various thrill seeking activities.

    Gaming is not so different. Everyone has their own reason for why they want to play games with a wide range of motivations, and it goes without saying that not everyone who plays games, plays for the same reason (as profusely evident in the class debates). Almost every game has a genre and that genre is designed around a certain audience.

    But even with simular audiences will play other genres for their own reasons. It provides evidence that genre’s are becoming dated. Games have now become platforms for all kinds of minds with all kinds of thinking processes. Instead of players who just want to play ‘that kind’ of game, it’s more where the stimulation and the mind meet. And you can look at the more popularised games and see the games that do well are till played at large today, are the games that the player’s themselves have customized and the type of game irrelevant.
    The personal influence drives gamers true interest in a game, and what thought processes they experience. A person can not distinguish their true nature, and though they may think that they like this game, as the game evolves, the person is likely to chance their preferences at an unconscious level, a personality magnet, able to chance our most inner preferences without us thinking about it.

    An example is that if a person, who has played a flight simulator enough, is most likely able to fly a real plane. I know personally of applications used in the defence for that train the reflexes and timing of their soldier’s with gaming.

    This is something the Wii would fulfil if it would reach its full potential. According to psychological evidence, games (not just those with physical game play) have a very real influence on our daily lives. I’d guaranty that none of us in the class are stranger to the power of games altering your thoughts, however for the better or not. The gaming addiction has far greater implications that gaming has on society and the world. Personally I find after playing games I’m a little sharper, perhaps a little more strategic in day to day events because of my interaction with games. It’s evident that games have an immense potential that the Wii is still far from discovery.

    Courtney Daly
    (s3238885)

    ReplyDelete
  72. dude i hope this post works! hahaha omg this would have to be the most fun i have ever had in a class!

    Well my views on physicality!

    Defining the line of physicality in games is the wrong aproach. I believe as an evolving industry we must try and remove all boundries eg: saying playing a "computer game" cant be physical. I think gameing can be just as physical as playing a soccer game.

    my argument is:

    A. It is proven scientificly that when you play game your heart rate does increase, much like in a game of soccer.

    B. Mentaly you can be puting in alot of physical energy coming up with stratergies and out smarting your opponent.

    C. Just because you are not kicking a ball dosnt mean the minor task you are doing is not physical. I do tho agree that pressing a key or a mouse click is no wear near a high levle of physical involvement as a soccer game but i have had moments where game play, mostly while playing with friends has just been as physical as that soccer game. The levle of drama and suspence really drained me and got me working a sweat! and no im not just really unfit :P haha

    I think the jacket idea is very inovative but due to funds didnt reach full potential. I think there were some great advice and sugestion raised!!

    till next time! josh platt s3239197

    i hope this post works!!

    ReplyDelete
  73. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Hi there

    Tay here(s3214125)

    I was absent for that class.(because I really hate Physics, it bored me to death). But I've miss so much fun. Looking through all the comments that you guys post, I think that some games wanted to make their gameplay close to the reality.(adding sensors ,camera, or something like Wii) BUT, game will always be game, it can't same as the real world, so why don't make something that the real world can't make it.

    That's it.

    Have a nice day

    ReplyDelete
  75. Physicality in games will play a huge role in the future of gaming for people will want to try new methods of game play. the wii has demonstrated how revolutionary physicality in game can be.

    ReplyDelete
  76. George SelemidisJune 7, 2009 at 1:01 AM

    I think there is a diffrence between physical games and games in general, but when i think about it logically, pretty much anything can be counted as a physical game. Its find an example of what is not a physical game. I guess thats the diffrence between a physically exerting game and a physical game.

    ReplyDelete