Valentine's Day LOVE Games

Today is the day of Love. Roses are passed out on the UofM Diag. Restaurants are packed with lovers out dining. Chocolate Shops sell out. Single people are lonely. Whether you are one to love or dread Cupid's day of love is beside the point. My question is - how does love and the valentines interaction change with the ever growing hook-up culture of my generation? What used to be considered a "steady" or dating, is now a person someone is "hooking up with". After this has been established, there is another question to ask - are we exclusive? These uncertainties are mere day to day, weekend to weekend complications, however - what happens when love, relationships, and feelings are highlighted on a day such as this?

Games: To put this in the context of a game, much of this "hook up culture" interaction occurs over the texting medium. We are all gamers through the language of cryptic, short messages that appear on our cellular phones. It is crucial to text the one you are hooking up with in the right fashion. Too many !'s implies too much enthusiasm, a . implies serious, angry tone. Wheres the happy medium and how do we learn to navigate it? It is a game that we all play. We imply subtle messages and unspoken feelings with our hookup partner (partner? Is that what they're considered?) through texting.

Back to Cupid: So how, on this day where stakes are high do we imply we have type of emotional attachment to this person, are probably thinking of this person but are not needy, desperate, or expecting any time of interaction?

Unsure of what to say? Just google: Valentine's Day Text Messages and there is a plethora of options to help you out. Try txt2nite.com! Or for the corniest option: The Loving Whisper.com.

-Lucy Colgan

Better Games: Simple or Complex Design?

Hey guys! Back again with another fun game. This weekend at 3am, instead of going to bed after a long night, my friends and I decided to play the board game "Munchkin". None have us had ever played before, so we were reminded of the extreme difficulty of learning how to play a new game. The instructions were 6 pages long!  This is when I say thanks for youtube. Watching someone provide a demonstrative visual along with instructions  made understanding the game much easier( here is the link, the last video in the playlist is a demo of the game: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=913576A8451E0041). This is an example where youtube exhibits the benefits of visual learning via demonstration and examples. For this reason, I believe Khan Academy is a fantastic resource that hopefully school systems will consider adapting soon. 

But, back to the game. 

In the most simplest terms, the goal of the game is for a player to reach level 10, by killing monsters or other methods. However, this game is anything but simple. The design of the game is to make the player feel like they are "role playing" in a virtual world. The game does this by giving is multiple elements with different card types: doors, monsters, curses, monster enhancer, class, race, helpers, portals, items, spells, weapons ect. 

The stakes seemed much higher playing the game due to its complexity and close reflection to real world situations by way of all of its elements.

 While an overload of elements in the game design gave incentive to play the game, it also was the cause for its biggest down fall. The many different cards made it hard to grasp the function of each card and determine when is best to use each because there are so many different situations that occur in the game. The cards also created many loopholes and exceptions that did nothing but make the game more complicated. 

As  a result, its various elements made it hard to have a solid, simple strategy when playing the game. However, in this sense it does accomplish the game's goal to reflect real world complexities, because we all know in the real world there is no solid strategy  that always guarantee success. 

What do you prefer? A simple game with minimal characteristics where a dominant strategy can be drawn out? Or, a complex game with multiple elements, where a successful strategy is more open-ended?


-Jen Joseph

Money Games!

Our problem:  I serve on the executive board of my sorority. While there are many perks of a leadership position, it also can be very hard to be in charge of your peers. It uncomfortable to 'punish' those who do not abide by the rules when they are your age, in your classes, and your friends. Last week our executive board ran into a predicament on the basis of this contradiction. Our treasurer approached the board with a problem: many people were not paying their dues. Despite her efforts to send personalized emails, threats at chapter, and house wide financial updates - people just weren't paying! We didn't know what to do and the money needed to be in by the end of the week. 

Our Solution: The executive board contemplated this issue for a long time, how could we get the girls to get the money in?! Finally we thought of it: A GAME! We decided to turn this process into a game. At chapter that night we announced it: Those who got their dues in the fastest would receive prizes accordingly. In addition, per day, as the number of paid members decreased, a new "round" would start and these individuals would compete in other ways. For example, the executive board would pick an arbitrary time, lets say 4:46, and whoever paid their dues closest to this time would be awarded a prize. 

On of the principles that went into our decision making to make this a game was the N-effect. The N-effect states that as the number of competitive participants increases, the competitive behavior decreases on the basis that social comparison decreases. We used this effect inversely. As the number of girls who needed to pay their dues decreases, the more intense the competition between them to win their prizes increased. This game solution worked. In just three days the percent of girls who paid their dues jumped from 65% to 93%. It was a great success! 

Laser Tag and Game Strategy

Last night, a group of friends and I decided to venture out of Ann Arbor and do something spontaneous, and where else to end up but Zap Zone. Not having been to a indoor laser tagging facility since 7th grade, I was excited to see if it was the same as I remembered. Playing again, I realized how it is hard to have an effect game strategy. Because the arena is so small and occupies two teams, each with about 15 players, it is almost impossible to find an area in the arena that remains undisturbed longer than 15 seconds. Being in close quarters limits the ability for a player to avoid being hit, and requires them to focus on maximizing their points by tagging other players in high scoring places, such as the shoulder or laser gun rather than the chest or back. 

Other ways to get high valued points is to tag the other team's base or hit special targets throughout the arena. However, many people forget about these objectives because they seem to enjoy the person-person science fiction imaginative interaction of the game play more. It appeared that more personal satisfaction was generated by tagging another player instead of a stationary target, perhaps due to feeling superior and winning over another rather than wracking up points through "solo" play. 

Lack of effective game strategy was also exhibited by being overshadowed by side factors. Even though we were older and had more of a strategy to wrack up points, the younger children repeatedly won because their small size enabled them to cover their packs easier and their height made them harder targets. 

Playing at Zap Zone was a great trip back to my childhood. But, if someone wants an activity where a good game strategy will be the factor of winning the game, indoor laser tagging is probably not the way to go. Instead, if one is looking to have great fun with friends playing a game not entirely structured around gameplay skill, they should return to the techno club styled arena, grab a laser pack, and fire away.


-Jen Joseph