How Indie Games Have Helped Me Appreciate Games for Kids

At the DMLC last week, during the discussion period that followed our panel presentation, a delegate humorously thanked me for doing the work that I do so that others don't have to. It was a comment full of good intentions and was certainly received as such (both by myself and by the audience), but it is also a comment that I in fact receive quite often. For while studying kids' games certainly sounds like (and is) a lot of fun, the clunky, promotion-laden contents of many of the commercial games that I research can definitely make in-depth analysis and concerted exploration a bit of a challenge. It's actually a dimension of my research that I've thought a lot about, both in terms of a methodological issue as well as a potential source of researcher bias. After all, adult assessments of children's culture are always going to be problematized by issues of perspective, varying (often biased) "standards," ideological notions of children/childhood, and the necessarily "outsider" status of the adult academic.

For the seasoned gamer (as well as many non-gamer adults for that matter), playing a game designed specifically for kids is often quite a different experience from playing a game designed for teens and adults. This is particularly true of games that are designed for kids specifically rather than for a general audience of "Everyone", and even truer when looking at MMOGs. Rather than the usual themes of violence, exploration and epic adventure that shape so many fantasy MMOGs, kids' MMOGs tend to be characterized by an emphasis on lightness, casual gameplay, positive feelings (such as happiness and kindness) and commercial/popular culture. Playing these games can also be oddly underwhelming. Like many digital games designed for children, technical features and aesthetic qualities are usually much more basic (not just more accessible, but more barebones) than those found in successful mainstream games. The customizable options available in kids' MMOGs are quite limited when compared to those available in T-rated MMOGs. The different areas and activities are fragmented and unintegrated. The “mise-en-scenes” (for example, the visual background and soundscape) are static and minimalistic. And the game mechanics are crude and oftentimes “clunky” -- delayed by time lags and program glitches.

So, in order to be able to immerse myself in these worlds and begin to appreciate their unique attributes and hidden complexities, it has been essential that I first cast aside any pre-existing biases about game design and aesthetic "standards" (as best I can anyway). Many of these biases are likely the result of many years of keeping pace with the perpetual race for technological and artistic innovation that has driven the growth of the commercial games industry since the early 1990s. While comparison to mainstream games and MMOGs is at times useful, particularly when comparing children’s game design across platforms and industry sectors, it is important that I avoid letting these comparisons dictate or obscure analysis of children's games on their own terms.

In fact, some of the strongest criticisms of mainstream game development in recent years are aimed at the perceived state of creative stagnancy produced by the industry’s narrow emphasis on “technological advancement.” As Fullerton, Chen, Santiago et al. describe, “Design advancement in the industry is generally limited to feature advancement within the existing domains of market genres. […] The exploration of new genres of games is considered risky in all regards: gameplay, technology, design and market viability." Like film before it, an important source of resistance and challenge to the status quo is found among the independents, who lack the big budgets required to compete in the industry’s endless race toward technological advancement, but as a result also have more freedom and impetus to attempt different types of innovation.

Accordingly, some of the most critically acclaimed games of the past few years have come out of independent game design studios, such as flOw, Flower and Cloud (created by Chen and produced by Santiago, who now run That Game Company), World of Goo (by 2D Boy), The Path (by Tale of Tales) and Okami (by the now defunct Japanese independent Clover Studios) (AND Braid, Submachine, Scarygirl, And Yet It Moves, Today I Die, etc., etc., etc.). Each of these “indie games” won multiple awards for originality and design innovation, and was widely celebrated by both the industry and the gaming culture (of players, fans, and critics). Yet none of them feature the type of "realistic" three-dimensional graphics, expansive level structures and expensive production qualities found within the mainstream games that usually set the hegemonic standard.

Instead, the emphasis within the indie games mentioned above is on the uniqueness of the graphics, on unusual innovations and manipulations of the gameplay mechanics, and on contributing to the advancement of something other than a Moore’s Law vision of technological advancement. Okami features a Japanese scroll-inspired game environment upon which the player can “paint” new objects and actions using the game controller to manipulate a giant virtual paintbrush. In World of Goo, the individual levels are spatially limited and contain simple, cartoonish graphics. However, the game is remarkable in the innovation of its physics, with which players must interact in increasingly complex ways in order to create structurally sound bridges and towers out of living gobs of goo. The main goal of gameplay within both flOw and Cloud is to attain a particular emotional state. There are no points or missions other than exploration, immersion and emotional investment in the gameplay process itself. Because these games are attempting to push and even break open existing standards and expectations of what a digital game should look and feel like, they defy established modes of comparison and evaluation.

Even within the established digital game industry, increasing attention is now placed on innovation, with the various console systems that now (or soon will) enable kinetic gameplay, multi-modal games that players can access across a variety of platforms, and a reconsideration of game design fundamentals. This is in fact particularly the case within child-inclusive games, most notably found in numerous titles released by Nintendo over the past couple of years, including Wii Sport, Super Mario Galaxy, Cooking Mama and Super Princess Peach. What this growing movement in game design demonstrates is that simple can be sophisticated, and that innovation cannot always be measured by size, scope and the number of pixels alone.

In terms of how this relates to the current discussion, there are many potential overlaps between indie games and children’s MMOGs. After all, children’s virtual worlds are a new phenomenon, and represent a clear break from the norms that have developed over the course of the past decade within MMOG design, including the tendency to develop games that specifically (and oftentimes exclusively) target a core gamer demographic consisting of young men between the ages of 14 to 32 years. Not to mention the fact that the games’ developers tend be outsiders themselves in relation to the established digital games industry. Perhaps some design limitations and a different set of emerging standards should be expected as new voices break into game development, and as new player communities are introduced into the existing MMOG culture.

Anyway - just some thoughts I've had about my process and about how to further contextualize my research &/or findings. I've never actually taken on or addressed this comment head on, and thought it might be time to hash out what my position actually is. My own growing love and appreciation for indie games, casual games and puzzle games has developed concurrent to (and possibly intertwined with) my ongoing study of kids' games, so there's also a definite "chicken or egg" phenomenon going on here. But the key theme that I take away from all this is that a shift in perspective has allowed me to find joy, meaning and value in a much broader spectrum of digital games (and game designs), which has not only helped my research but has also enriched my leisure experience immensely.

Our DML2010 Prezi Presentation

For those of you who weren't able to make it to the Digital Media Learning Conference (see below), you can view our presentation here (made - collaboratively - using Prezi).

Reimagining Learning Puts LittleBigPlanet in the (MacArthur) Spotlight

Earlier today, the MacArthur Foundation and the HASTAC Initiative announced the upcoming launch of the 2010 Digital Media and Learning Competition, on the theme "Reimagining Learning." The $2 million open competition officially starts on December 14, and seeks proposals that outline "creative ideas to transform learning using digital media." In particular, the competition description emphasizes project that link STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) curricula and other experiences to digital games. As per the competition description, this means "any game, especially but not limited to LittleBigPlanet™ on PlayStation®3." Proposals are furthermore sought in two different but deeply interrelated categories, one of which revolves almost entirely around LittleBigPlanet. The DMLC invites proposals from designers, inventors, entrepreneurs, researchers, and others engaged in building digital media experiences (what the organization is calling "the learning labs of the 21st Century") that aim specifically to "help young people interact, share, build, tinker, and explore in new and innovative ways." In addition to the obvious sponsorship of Sony and LittleBigPlanet, the competition is further supported by a grant to the University of California at Irvine. There are also some important political links to US President Obama's call for new efforts to reimagine and improve education in STEM subjects, and the competition was coordinated in partnership with National Lab Day.

A key focus of the competition, and of the MacArthur Foundation generally, is to identify and promote new ways of fostering participatory learning experiences for kids and teens. The organization defines participatory learning as "a form of learning connected to individual interests and passions, inherently social in nature, and occurring during hands-on, creative activities." As such, the competition will function as part of MacArthur’s ongoing "digital media and learning" initiative, which explores existing and potential ways in which digital technologies can be used to change how young people play, learn, socialize and engage in traditional and emerging forms of citizenship. For an example of some of the previous work done under this rubric, you might want to check out the "Kids' Informal Learning with Digital Media: An Ethnographic Investigation of Innovative Knowledge Cultures" project that wrapped up last year (a joint project carried out at the University of Southern California and University of California, Berkeley, that drew on the expertise of a number of key children's scholars, including Mimi Ito and Barrie Thorne, among equally notable others).

Anyway, here are the competition category descriptions as posted on the DMLC official competition website:

21st Century Learning Lab Designers
The 21st Century Learning Lab Designers category is aligned with National Lab Day. Winners will receive awards for learning environments and digital media-based experiences that allow young people to grapple with social challenges through activities based on the social nature, contexts, and ideas of science, technology, engineering and math. Digital media of any type (social networks, games, virtual worlds, mobile devices or others) may be used. Proposals are also encouraged for curricula or other experiences that link or connect to any game, especially but not limited to LittleBigPlanet™ on PlayStation®3 (PS3™).

Game Changers
Winners in the Game Changers category will receive awards for creative new games or for additions to Sony's LittleBigPlanet™. These games and game expansions should offer young people highly engaging game play experiences that incorporate principles of science, technology, engineering and math. One aim of the Game Changers category is to create new game play experiences using the existing popular video game, LittleBigPlanet™, winner of numerous "game of the year" awards in 2008. Sony Computer Entertainment of America (SCEA), in cooperation with ESA and ITIC, will team with MacArthur to support this component of the Competition. Sony Computer Entertainment of America will donate a significant number of PlayStation®3 (PS3™) consoles and copies of LittleBigPlanet™ to community-based organizations and libraries in low-income communities. They will also make the winning levels available to the game playing community at no cost. [****SMG: As described in the press release, Sony will also donate 1000 PlayStation 3 consoles and copies of LittleBigPlanet to libraries and community-based organizations in low-income communities across the US.]

Proposals submitted to either category will then be posted for public comment at three different stages of the selection process. According to the competition website, multiple awards will be given in each category (including People's Choice Awards for proposals that receive the most votes from the public at large), the winners of which will be announced this coming Spring 2010.

Seeing as I was planning on making LittleBigPlanet a key case study in my planned future investigation of UGC games and player-creator communities, this is a pretty exciting announcement. The profile raising, well-funded, wide-reaching nature of the competition will mean some pretty interesting things in terms of the evolution of the LBP community, the types of people involved, as well as some likely opportunities for investigations into the demographics of the competition entrants, and the thematic and formal features of the levels they submit (thinking specifically about the Game Changer category here, but of course the broader competition holds even more potential for new and exciting forms of content). On the one hand, of course, I can't ignore the underlying sponsorship and corporate branding dimensions of the competition. This is definitely a great PR move on Sony's part, coinciding as it does with the launch of the newest installment of what is fast becoming an LBP franchise. The question remains, how will the presence of "TM" (trademarks) limit & appropriate the creativity of the submissions?

That said, there are very few programs quite like LBP, both in terms of accessibility (by which I mean usability, affordability and access to the hardware requirements/platform) and in terms of playability. The game and its ever-growing community are fantastic examples of user-centred design. The game and level-builder are also highly accessible to children and novice users, and seem to be used by users of both genders (using anecdotal evidence and observations - some real examination of the demographics involved in these games would be immensely useful at this point), which only enhances the appeal and potential that the game carries for opening up these types of competitions to new voices, youth voices, etc.

My primary research questions will necessarily include a focus on the proprietary implications that arise whenever creativity is invited and facilitated under a system of corporate governance (which are almost always driven by profit and copyright concerns). However, in the case of the DMLC competition, it seems that the goal is to create and promote the submissions under some form of Creative Commons, as indicated by the stipulation that the game levels be offered to the player community free of charge. Admittedly, this might be wishful thinking on my part, but it's definitely one of the possibilities I'll be examining as I follow the developments and outcome of the competition over the next few months. I wish now that I had stuck with my original proposal for the upcoming DMLC conference, which was to talk about my research plans for LBP, Spore, Metaplace and Kodu (and now Playcrafter). *sigh* Oh well, there's always next time!

**Update: Though this wasn't mentioned in either of the press releases I read last week, it seems that the Joan Ganz Cooney Centre (the research arm of The Sesame Workshop) is also involved in this initiative. Here's an excerpt from their press release:

"ESA and ITI are also working with leading education stakeholders on the competition, including The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, Games for Change, and E-Line Ventures. ESA, ITI and their partners will challenge America’s best and brightest, including children, to enter the competition with ideas that can be designed into web-executable, browser-based, STEM-related computer and video games in three age-based categories: 4 to 8 year olds, 8 to 12 year olds and 12 to 16 year olds. In addition to funding, ESA, ITI and their member companies will provide judges, mentorship, and technical expertise to the winning teams to maximize their utility, outreach and effectiveness."

Great to see the Cooney Center is involved with this - they do excellent work and have all the required expertise when it comes to merging high quality educational content with fun, as well as a great mandate when it comes to involving & addressing the needs of marginalized groups.

Virtual-to-Real World Play

March 11, 2008: Big oops! So, yesterday I mistakenly posted the article that I was trying to link to instead of posting my own write-up, an error I didn't notice until just now. Yikes! That original post was written by Virtual Worlds News, a great source for gaming news and for keeping track of the evolution of the virtual worlds industry. So, here's take two on Virtual-to-Real World Play.

******
By way of Virtual Worlds News, some nice liveblogging coverage of last month's Worlds in Motion Summit. The Summit itself included a number of fascinating talks from some of the world's leading game producers and designers, who discussed everything from advergames and virtual markets in Habbo Hotel, to content and technological convergence within various game environments. Of particular interest was a talk given by MindCandy's Michael Acton Smith on "Thinking Outside Virtual Worlds" and the company's newest game/toy/project Moshi Monsters -- a new virtual-to-real world kids' property that I first reported on in December, and set to launch sometime over the next couple of weeks. Like many of its contemporaries, Moshi Monsters bridges different forms of mediated play, using a "virtual pet" as the anchor. What I find unique about this project, is that the brand is incorporating mobile devices from the get-go, resulting in a property that (according to Virtual Worlds News) Acton Smith describes as "Tamagotchi mixed with Facebook and a little bit of Big Brain thrown in."

Commenting on the success of Webkinz, which although impressive still lags behind traditional toys such as Beanie Babies, Smith had this to say:

"So why, as a game designer, should we care? Why should we bother thinking beyond the screen?" Smith posited. One reason is that toy tie-ins are not only an additional revenue source, but they allow for a deeper connection with the users.

To which he added (according to VWN):

"I believe there’s still a huge amount of opportunity left in this space,” said Smith.

Game designers, though, need to start thinking “beyond the screen.” The revenue stream has too much potential not to. “More importantly,” said Smith, “it allows consumers to connect to our worlds and create more engagement and, hopefully, more fun.”

What makes online pets different from earlier, non-digital versions is, Acton Smith believes, their high levels of interactivity:

Setting online pets apart from Furbies...is the ease of interaction. From Webkinz to MyePets to Moshi Monsters, interaction is key. MindCandy, for example, is adding widgets aimed at its older audience to tie their pet experience to Facebook or Bebo. Once users add friends, the creatures will socialize even when the users are offline, generating a Facebook-style newsfeed to track activity.

For the younger audience, MindCandy is adding "stealth education” with changing vocabularies and puzzles tied to the in-game currency of “rocks,” with monsters adding new puzzles for their owners every day.

In terms of the larger industry trends, here's a quick run-down of what Acton Smith and Virtual Worlds News had to say about the key players in this area and where they've focused their virtual-to-real play efforts [****Note, this list is great, but incomplete - I can already think of a few that are missing, and will work on providing a more comprehensive list as soon as I get a chance****]:

- Webkinz: The plush toys for starters, as well as figurines, lip gloss, and other licensed products to monetize the interest in the brand.

- BarbieGirls.com and Be-Bratz: Are targeting older. Toys and accessories already available, more to follow.

- Collectible cards: A number of properties are expanding this way, including Bella Sara, Chaotic, Maple Story, and World of Warcraft.

- Virtual Paper Dolls and IRL (Fashion) Design: Moo.com (with Habbo), Stardoll, Zazzle, and FigurePrints.com all provide different tools that allow users to bring virtual fashions into the real world: by printing avatars on a T-shirt, or designing avatar clothes that can then be made IRL for the player, designing your own avatar-based figurine, etc.

- TestTubeAliens.com: Toy that detects screen patterns when held up to the computer screen, changing the mood of the "test tube alien" inside.

- UbFunKeys: Similar to Webkinz, but with plastic figurines instead of plush toys.

- Tamagotchi: Relaunched and updated to include an online world.

- Me2: According to VWN "A motion sensor that records your physical activity and then points to your virtual character at home, potentially promoting activity away from the sedentary lifestyle."

- iBuddy or Ambient Devices’ gadgets: Which "interface with your computer or environment to provide you more information, creating more of an augmented reality than a straight up virtual world, but creating possibilities, said Smith, for giving feedback to users away from their avatars."

To this we could add Neopets, which has long had its own line of plush toys, interactive figurines, collectible cards and console tie-in games...as well as Barbie i-Design and a slew of others...

...Including many of the properties represented in the last panel of the summit, which was (appropriately enough) entitled "Striking Gold: How Kids’ Worlds Took the Crown". The panel (moderated by game journalist Leigh Alexander) brought together a nunmber of heavy hitters within the kids' digital play landscape, including Paul Yanover (of Disney Online), Lane Marrifield (co-founder of Club Penguin), Jason Root (Senior VP of Nick.com & NickatNite.com) and Kyra Reppen (Senior VP of Neopets). Again, this is primarily a summary of first-hand coverage (to which I will add comments at a later date or incorporate into something else), this time provided by the Worlds in Motion blog, which I've divided up into the key questions/themes that appear (from reading the coverage at least) to have driven the discussion.

On the question of how each company initially decided to focus on the kids' market:

Paul Yanover (Disney): "[S]tarted off from "[the] revisionist side of things." In the 90's, Disney Imagineers began experimenting with virtual reality and “though that didn’t really pan out, that team built great tech and art” eventually those ideas became Toontown."

Lane Marrifield (Club Penguin): ""We didn’t have an identity to start with, other than we had kids." He discussed looking at what was available for kids, what they liked, what they didn’t." [We] map every decision we make around the experience of six year olds, well, my six year old really."

Jason Root (Nickelodeon): They "Saw patterns on how kids were using our site, and the web at large.” 84% of kids are playing games online. “We wanted to evolve into a ‘place’, we wanted to bring those things together” with focus on mixing branded and non-branded content.

Kyra Reppen (Neopets): "[T]here is a "[natural] emotional connection with pets." Their virtual world "just started out being fun, but it's endless how much can be done with it."

On how player loyalty is maintained, as well as how player feedback and input is used:

Kyra Reppen (Neopets): “It’s about listening to the users...we get 30,000 new accounts every day... we need to cater to them, but we also need to take care of the old users who’ve been there for over four years. They have different needs, they’re the experts. So listening to them, making new content every day, keeping them engaged is important. It’s up to us to keep them.”

Paul Yanover: "It’s all about participation, it’s about listening. It’s something they have to have ownership of. We don’t want to project something at them, they need that ownership.”

Jason Root: "For user generated content and professionally created content, it’s about balancing those. Some kids want more of one than the other, but we have to find that balance."

Lane Marrifield: “It [was] a whole different gig. The purist nature of creating something for kids helped set us in the right kind of decision making.... all we hoped [for] was it liked enough that we could build a sustainable business model. We just hired our first marketing person!”

On safety as a key feature (and selling feature):

Lane Marrifield: “We have over 120 people dedicated to the safety of Club Penguin. We don’t mess around with that. We knew that if we were going to build the trust of the parents, there was no margin for error there. Only one incident and it would’ve been over.”

As the Worlds in Motion coverage describes, "The company’s safety program was thorough enough that they were invited to an F.B.I conference on safety to give a talk. "We’re more focused on that then we are on the gaming community.""

On balancing play with profits:

Jason Root: [T]he difficulty lays in, "figuring out how stay true to the audience and [at the same time] how to make a viable business plan... feeding these sites, they need to be tended to."

Kyran Reppen: "It’s hard to get the payment mechanisms in [kids’] hands.” Which, according to the Worlds in Motion article, "is why pre-paid cards for online services have been a boon for them as well as others."

On how to keep kids playing the games as they grow older.

Kyran Reppen: "This generation of kids are growing up with virtual worlds as their play pattern. They’re going to grow up demanding new kinds of play patterns... I can only speak for what Neopets has done, and it speaks to constant innovation."

Lane Marrifield: "Frankly, that's part of the fun. It's not just about building it, it's about sustaining it. It needs to be a labor of love. Kids will smell a disingenuous product from a million miles away... you got to truly care about kids."

CFP: Digitel 2008

Via the AIR-L mailing list, a CFP that may be of interest to some of you:

2nd IEEE International Conference on Digital Games and Intelligent Toys Based Education (DIGITEL 2008)

November 17-19, 2008, Banff, Canada
http://www.ask4research.info/digitel/2008/

** Sponsored by IEEE Technical Committee on Learning Technology

The Conference Proceedings will be published by the IEEE Computer Society Press.

** Important dates:
Submissions due: May 30, 2008
Decision notification: August 1, 2008
Final articles due: September 12, 2008
Conference: November 17-19, 2008

There is a rapidly growing interest in exploring design and technology of digital games and intelligent toys for learning. While digital games, especially online games, exploit advanced multimedia and Internet technology, intelligent toys embedded with chips and sensors utilize wireless, mobile, and ubiquitous computing technologies. Digital games and intelligent toys are potential new genres of advanced learning technology.

The gaming strategies and toy design that incorporate both individual and social activities will offer a significant opportunity for researchers to investigate the long-running research issues of technology enhanced learning such as attention, motivation, and emotion. It will not be a surprise that in the distant future when this emerging research is proved to be fruitful, most technology enhanced learning will incorporate some elements of digital games. Despite the surging interest in this emerging research, there are plenty challenging research issues to be investigated. For example, can one really learn meaningfully and deeply from games? Will there be new theories that explain phenomena of learning with fun? What constitute game pedagogies? How this genre of technology enhanced learning can be adopted to formal and informal learning settings? What are the possible dark sides of game and toyed education and how to prevent them? DIGITEL 2008 provides a forum for researchers various disciplines and practitioners to share and exchange of this emerging research area.

We invite submission of papers reporting original academic or industrial research on the issues related to digital games and toyes based education. Complete papers will be required for review process; only abstracts will not be sufficient. All authors of accepted submissions will be required to complete IEEE Copyright Form. Authors of selected papers will be invited to submit extended versions for a Special Issue of a reputed journal.

** Submissions
Submissions are invited in following categories:
Full papers: 8 pages
Short papers: 5 pages
Posters: 3 pages
Workshop proposals: 2 pages
Panel proposals: 2 pages
Interactive sessions: 3 pages

** For more details, please see the website:
http://www.ask4research.info/digitel/2008/

* Conference Chair:
Margaret Haughey, Athabasca University, Canada

* Program Chair:
Michael Eisenberg, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA

* Local Chair:
Maiga Chang, Athabasca University, Canada

* General Chair:
Kinshuk, Athabasca University, Canada

* General Co-Chair:
Tak-Wai Chan, National Central University, Taiwan

* Organization Chair:
Rory McGreal, Athabasca University, Canada

* Local Administrator:
Jill Calliou, Athabasca University, Canada

* Finance Chair:
Rebecca Heartt, Athabasca University, Canada

** For queries, please contact:

Kinshuk (kinshuk at ieee.org)
Jill Calliou (jillc at athabascau.ca)

Disney Fairies, On and Offline Play

So this year's American International Toy Fair has now come and gone, with plenty of noteworthy announcements to keep kids' media researchers busy for the next few months (at least!)...Including a number of new developments within the emerging virtual-to-real (or real-to-virtual) toy market, and some interesting news from Disney regarding its Disney Fairies franchise. As covered by Business Wire, Disney has partnered up with Techno Source to produce a line of "Clickables" toys that will tie-in to the Fairies website...soon to become a full-fledged "virtual world". As with other initiatives of this kind (BarbieGirls, Webkinz, be-bratz, etc.), the (stated) goal is "to extend" kids online play into offline playtime, and vice-versa. As Chris Heatherly, VP of Technology and Innovation at Disney Consumer Products, states (as quoted in the Business Wire article):

"The future of toys is about connecting online and offline play. Kids and tweens are quickly embracing virtual worlds and, while there are several Internet-related toys in the market today, the play ends when the computer gets shut down. With our new line of Disney Fairies toys featuring Clickables technology, we're bringing the fun of social networking, collecting, and trading into the real world so that girls can extend the fun of the enchanting online world of Pixie Hollow to school, the park, or wherever they may be."

And how do they plan to achieve this most holy of the holy grails of the children's industries (i.e. branded play)? By embedding, or "naturally aligning," the property within children's "existing play patterns"...and of course by offering "exclusive content" within the virtual world that kids won't be able to access without purchasing one (or all) of the associated products. According to the article, Disney also "hopes that by offering these Internet-connected toys that it will teach girls to share their Fairies and create friendships" - which we can also read as a hope that the "friendship bracelet" theme promoted by the toys will enhance viral marketing within peer groups. Thus, like BarbieGirls, Disney appears to be creating games and toys that more or less depend upon (or one could say exploit) real-life relationships by encouraging word-of-mouth marketing (by requiring that kids find a real-life friend to sign up if they want to access all the site's features, communicate more freely, etc.).

Here's a full list of the tie-in products released to date, courtesy of Gearlog (which you should definitely check out if you want to see some pics of the products themselves):

* Pixie Dust eJewelry Collection: a jewelry box, charm necklace, and three exclusive Disney Fairies charms powered by Clickables technology. When a girl touches a charm to the Clickables center of her jewelry box, it unlocks a unique fairy gift at www.PixieHollow.com, including exclusive clothing and décor.

* Tink Friendship eBracelets: a Fairy Friendship Kit where a girl can select her fairy avatar, a special message, and a gift on the virtual world, and then save it onto her eBracelet to be shared offline with friends. When a girl touches her band to her friend's and presses a button, her band will glow to confirm that a Fairy Friendship has been made!

* Tink's eCharm Bracelet: a customizable charm bracelet and three themed charms. Each charm unlocks a unique, exclusive fairy gift at www.PixieHollow.com.

* Fairy eCharms accessory packs: Each pack contains three themed Disney Fairies eCharms powered with Clickables technology.

* Tink and Friends Fly with Me eLCD: an electronic handheld with five games, letting girls play as their favorite Disney Fairies characters Tinker Bell, Fawn, Iridessa, Silvermist, or Rosetta no matter where they are. Best of all, points earned during gameplay are turned into exclusive Tink Points in the virtual world to use toward clothes or décor.

The toys will be launched to coincide with the release of the upcoming direct-to-DVD animated film based on the franchise, Tinker Bell (so...summer 2008?) and probably with the planned MMO expansion of the site (which will see Disney Fairies transform into Disney Fairies Pixie Hollow). With all this news, we've also been given some new stats on the Disney Fairies franchise, which is by all accounts mushrooming in popularity. According to corporate communication:

* The Disney Fairies site contains just under 5 million unique fairy avatars;

* It attracts 1 million unique visitors every month;

* In 2007 alone, the franchise generated more than $800 million in global retail sales from an array of "merchandise and lifestyle" products, including apparel, toys, electronics, home décor and stationery;

* The over 385 Disney Fairies books that have been published worldwide (in 51 countries) have sold nearly 9.5 million copies;

* Disney Fairies magazines have sold 6 million copies in 40 countries.

From what I've seen and read so far, the site (and/or its planned expansion) reproduces many of the same issues as other branded kids' games, including privacy/safety/freedom of expression trade-offs, cross-media (and cross-product) promotion (fostered through problematic strategies such as collectibles and viral marketing), and potential IP issues as well (depending on the levels of UGC enabled within the upcoming MMOG). That said, the site is a total blast to play and I'm really hoping (with fingers crossed) that the MMOG will maintain the playability and limited commercialization of Disney's Toontown. I'm not too convinced that this is likely, however, as the cross-promotional machine is already in full swing with this one...and even follows a pretty eerily accurate industry prediction made a couple of years ago.

In trying to describe the Disney Fairies franchise to a colleague earlier today, I found myself somewhat trapped in the very intertextuality upon which the brand was launched...the books, the website, now the toys and film, all part of a carefully rolled-out strategy, with no real originating text other than the minimally-defined Tinker Bell character (from Peter Pan and subsequent Disney usage) and some good ideas about character differentiation...mixed in with a few tried-and-true 'fantasy genre' motifs (e.g. elemental magic, etc.) and drawing upon a number of popular digital play forms (virtual paper dolls, MMOGs, etc.). Yet, although the brand is obviously completely embedded in its own cross-promotional synergy, it is this very dynamic that makes it more difficult to analyze than other games/media that start off as one thing, and then become more overtly commercialized through the insertion of third-party advertising or other marketing schemes. Sites/brands like Disney Fairies are tricky because they are -- from the get-go -- primarily promoting themselves...the brand's characters and themes, and consumption of the brand through a myriad of interconnected products, media, and play forms.

As a bit of an aside, I'm really starting to feel that we need a shared term to describe games and toys that converge on and offline play in this way. Suggestions?

For more coverage, check out Izzy Neis' post here, and keep an eye on her excellent and ongoing list of upcoming virtual worlds for kids.

My G-Life: Game Design with a Mission

Cool site alert! An article was published in the BBC news online a few weeks ago (but I only just now had the chance to research it) about a new "social networking site" aimed at enabling teens around the world (aged 13+) to learn game design/development skills and then share their final products...all under the Creative Commons license. The site is called My GLife.org, and is currently in beta-mode, operating with only a bare bones structure and no teen-designed games as of yet. Some media and marketing (?) companies have donated simple flash games as examples, though, to give visitors and potential developers a sense of what they're looking for. Here's an excerpt from the official description of the site:

Through an open architecture of websites and related wikis and blogs, MyGLife participants learn to analyze, design and build web-based games and simulations that address globally relevant and social issues of their choice and passion. Topics include climate change, ecology, water, community services, technology skills, peace and more.

[...]

MyGLife.org is comprised of an open architecture of educational, programmable websites and related wikis that offer more than 100 educational activities, simulations and tutorials to play, learn, explore and contribute new ideas online.

* PLAY to Learn invites participants to play with an arcade of games, puzzles, creative tools and scientific simulations and to think about them critically as game developers. Donated and open source customized tutorials allow participants to tinker with the underlying game code and learn programming skills.

* LEARN to Build features an extensive library of hand-picked, custom written and open source tutorials for learning Flash, HTML, Graphic Design, Wiki, Blogging and Project Development skills.

* EXPLORE Web 2.0 Resources features links to recommended online resources and lists of suggested readings that will help participants.

* CONTRIBUTE Knowledge and Support encourages participants to follow-up their learning by contributing works back to the site. Professional developers and organizations worldwide can also donate work and learn how to start MyGLife programs locally.

The project is run by an organization called World Wide Workshop, which I hadn't heard of before now, but appears to have a pretty awesome goal of spreading global participation in digital cultural production to groups that are most often excluded, in this case young people from disadvantaged communities in developing countries worldwide.

"D is for Digital" But Not Educational

****Originally drafted on January 9th****

By way of Josh Golin at the CCFC, an announcement this week from the newly formed Joan Ganz Cooney Center, which has recently completed a report on the kids' (ages 3 to 11) digital media industry. Focusing on educational content and marketing, D is for Digital makes a pretty clear argument for government-driven standards when it comes to digital products claiming educational value. According to the Center's press release:

The 50-page study, the first to analyze the current interactive media environment for preschool and elementary age children, documents how the recent aging down and exponential growth of digital products are shaping how children, ages 3-11, live and learn. Of the 300+ products studied, the paper found that most do not take advantage of available research regarding children's educational needs particularly in a global economy where literacy and learning requirements are fast evolving. Among the findings, the survey yielded only two educational video games (in an industry that generated $500 million in 2006 for the top 20 titles alone) based on explicit educational curriculum design available in the market.

The report also identified influential market trends with strong potential for education; examined the type of informal learning products on the market; and recommended ways to expand the availability of quality educational media for children.

The report also makes a number of recommendations for industry, researchers and policymakers including:

- Better partnerships should be built between research and industry, to foster quality educational products;

- More emphasis should be placed on educational videogame development;

- Intergenerational interaction should be encouraged through product design;

- Evidentiary standards for "educational" products need to be created; -- and here the report refers back to the Kaiser Family Foundation's 2005 report A Teacher in the Living Room?, stating that in the time that has lapsed since the KFF's study, the market has become (as the KFF predicted) "dominated by products that advertise unsubstantiated educational claims." In response, the Joan Ganz Clooney Centre recommends the following "Action Step":

Federal regulatory bodies such as the Federal Trade Commission, voluntary industry groups such as The Better Business Bureau, and parent advocates such as Common Sense Media should collaborate on a consumer protection initiative to better describe educational effectiveness in interactive media products for children.

- Policies should be implemented to protect children from digital commercialism; -- a recommendation which the Centre suggests can be achieved by better coordination of regulatory bodies:

Federal regulatory bodies, such as the Federal Communications Commission, and voluntary industry, public interest advocacy, and philanthropic organizations, should initiate the advancement of policies that protect children from commercialism in a digital age. A revitalization of The Children’s Television Act needs to be undertaken to modernize the child protections now called for in a digital age.

The report also offers two recommendations specific to academics:
- A research agenda should be established that addresses the implications of market trends on product development;

Academic researchers need to investigate the implications of the current environment on children’s informal learning, and recognize “what works” in educating children through digital media products.

- Academic research should be made more accessible to industry;

Academic institutions should disseminate research findings to industry through industry publications and events.

There's a fine line between praxis or collaborating for a better media environment, and full-on commercial research, which really isn't addressed here. Read one way, it sounds like a great idea, read another way, it sounds like research for profit, or at the very least enhancing the one-way street that currently exists between academic and commercial research. Academic research findings may usually only be available through journals and academic texts, but at least it's published freely and made part of the public domain. In the world of kids' media, it's the commercial sector who sits on the research goldmine, and I'd like to see these "partnerships" result in a more open and accountable commercial research sector as well.

While the fact that the study was focused on "educational" media explains much of its emphasis on purposive play/media use, I think that an underlying bias for productive leisure is also driving much of the Center's activities and positions. This is clear from the company's mission statement (which describes the Center as "Focusing especially on the needs of disadvantaged children, the Center conducts and supports research, creates educational models and interactive media properties, and builds cross-sector partnerships to scale-up best practices"), and is also pretty explicitly expressed in Michael Levine's (the Center's Executive Director) statements about the report (as quoted in the press release), which included the following:

"Kids today are spending almost as much time with media as attending school, so there is an opportunity to create more engaging educational products than ever before. Unfortunately, most of the new digital products we reviewed, with notable exceptions, do not yet promote the vital literacy, creativity and problem-solving skills children need to succeed. The report documents how industry leaders, working closely with experts in child development and research, can develop interactive educational products that can leverage key market opportunities and promote a new vision for learning and entertainment."

A very fascinating first contribution from the people who brought us Sesame Street -- definitely going into my chapter on kiddie-tech and "educational" play.

iBarbie

*****Originally drafted on January 9th*****

Inspired by the success of BarbieGirls, and building upon its past good fortune with fashion games (such as the Barbie: Fashion Designer PC games), Mattel made its mark on this week's Sandbox Summit by launching its newest girlie-tech initiative, a CD/collectible card game hybrid called Barbie iDesign. According to the press release:

Barbie® iDesign™ is the newest introduction from the "Barbie Tech" group, and builds on the success of Barbie Girls™, a hybrid play experience that combines a real world, doll-inspired music device with a virtual world platform. BarbieGirls.com, the first global, virtual online world designed exclusively for girls now boasts more than 9.5 million registered users worldwide and has been referred to as the "fastest growing virtual world ever".

Continuing to tap into how today's girls play, and expand the Barbie® tech line-up, Barbie® iDesign™ turns fashion play traditionally experienced through a doll into an interactive, computer-based game with scannable fashion cards. With Barbie® iDesign™ girls become the ultimate fashion stylist through a highly creative and engaging gaming experience.

The game's incorporation of RL play and virtual play is of particular interest to me, of course, as is the clever integration of collectibility into the game design. Sort of Pokemonesque, the collectible cards that go with the game could turn into quite the cash cow for Mattel, and quite the headache for kids (as gameplay will surely be limited unless more cards are acquired) and parents (who will be expected to pay for said cards). Of course, Barbie dolls have always promoted consumption through the collection of Barbie clothes, accessories, dream houses and friends....all of which now appear available in card-to-virtual form. As the press release explains:

There are 200 different, collectible fashion cards, consisting of various hair styles, tops , bottoms, dresses, shoes, accessories and fashion models, and each has a unique barcode that when "swiped" through the USB-connected scanner, is uploaded to the "Design Studio" closet within the PC software. Once fashions are scanned and loaded on the computer, girls can play fashion stylist and create more than 21,000,000 fashionable ensembles in the game's "Design Studio." When the fashions are runway ready, girls are able to customize their fashion show in the game's "Fashion Runway" mode of play.

Other than promoting micro-purchases, the game will allow girls to "create unique fashions...by mixing and matching the different fashiosn that have been swiped and added to the "closet"" (just like on the Barbie Girls site, this sounds more like styling than fashion designing, and I'm pretty sure we'll see many of the same clothes available for purchase in Barbie doll sizes), design a fashion show featuring the runway talent of Barbie and her friends (again, through customization, and "play" in the "Designer's Club" -- where they can watch a recording of their "Runway Show", design a magazine cover using images from their Runway Show (or Design Studio), and use the "fashion cards" to play basic games like memory. I can't wait to get my hands on a copy, as this sounds like a perfect example of Mattel's now standard approach toward integrating marketing.

In related news, Mattel spent a good chunk of the pre-Christmas hype season building up its BarbieGirls brand and mp3 player, touting its popularity and claiming the title of "most requested toy" for girls, according to a number of magazines and websites that rank this type of thing. And although I did find a number of articles supporting the claim, the vast majority (i.e. all the ones I read) were cut and paste rewrites of a Mattel press release from late-November. Here's an excerpt:

As the holiday season's busiest shopping weekend kicks off today, gift-givers will be heading into the Barbie® aisle to find the season's "most requested toy" for girls. For the fifth year in a row, Barbie® toys were named the No. 1 requested holiday gift by girls, per the National Retail Federation, shining this year with the hugely innovative, tech-y Barbie Girls™ device and a new line of princess-themed dolls and playsets based on the popular new DVD "Barbie™ as The Island Princess." Additionally, several other Mattel Brands' toys have been named by toy, parenting, technology and retail experts as the season's must-have's.

I've gathered together links to all the sources cited in the Mattel press release that include the Barbie Girls mp3 in their top ten (for girls, or for younger kids, or for kids generally). These include:
All Aboard Toys.com
eToys
iParenting Media
AOL
PC Magazine
The National Parenting Centre
Top Toys Guide
Toy Wishes
Toys'R'Us
UK Toy Retailers Association.

The site/product has also won an award from the Web Marketing Association for "Best Toy Site", which I find particularly interesting and worthy of note. It seems that we are witnessing a veritable renaissance of the girls' games movement, with almost no deviation from its first incarnation, other than the massively increased presence of marketing and cross-promotion.

Imagine [Insert Gender Stereotype Here]

There's a great post on Bonnie Ruberg's Heroine Sheik this week about the new Imagine line of girl games by Ubisoft for the Nintendo DS. I've been seeing (and cringing at) ads for these games during Saturday morning cartoon blocks lately, and have been interested in finding out more about them, so this is great timing. You can also check out this post on Ypulse. Rather than chime in on the issues these games raise in terms of gender representation and how "girl games" are consistently defined by the games industry in the same stereotypical terms, I want to post an excerpt from a paper I'm working on that links this trend to a much deeper historical tradition of utilitarianism in the social shaping of "girls play". Adults have long sought to contain children's play, but girls' play in particular, for more "useful" and productive ends. For girls, this most often meant channeling play towards activities that were thought to prepare them to be good wives and mothers. Not that girls didn't love their dolls and Easy-Bake ovens (I know I did!), but there's a lot going on here relating to the social construction of girls play that it is impossible to really separate out from the experience itself. The following excerpt is part of a larger exploration of how western thinking about play tends to approach it in very "rational" and instrumental terms (for example, the construction of work/play as analytic categories), and how this approach influences what games and activities are deemed "appropriate" or idealized at a particular point in history.

Another important entry point for understanding how the rationalization of play occurs beyond the boundaries of the work/play binary is through a deeper exploration of the role of the domestic sphere in the construction and regulation of modern play practices. In reviewing the foundational literature on play, the male-centricity of the work/play dichotomy and the omission of female players from these debates are immediately apparent. The omission of the female experience of leisure within modernity challenges the notion that industrialization ever truly led to a separation of the spheres as reflected in the work/play binary, and calls into question the ways in which play and work have thus far been defined within the play literature. Throughout history, as Calvert (1998: 76) writes, “[L]ife was often very different for boys and girls at any given time. Boys and girls in America were dressed differently, treated differently, given different amounts of time for play, work, and study, and taught to handle all three activities differently.” Women and girls have historically enjoyed fewer leisure opportunities (Vallone 1995) and been steered toward much more limited and restrictive play practices than their male counterparts (Hendershot 1996). Indeed, productive or functional play has been a prominent feature of girls’ leisure time throughout the industrial era. In the nineteenth-century, as Formanek-Brunell (1998: 364) describes, “Girls were urged toward usefulness in their play as natural training in the republican values they would need as future wives and mothers of citizens.” Historical studies of girls’ and women’s leisure thus suggest that the modern rationalization of play does not necessarily represent the incorporation of “work” into play, as much as a continued extension of domesticization—-the rationalizing system of the “private” sphere of the home.

Not that girls just accepted the roles and limitations that were placed on them. In parallel with the tradition of containing girls' play is a tradition of little girls using play to subvert gender norms and expectations:

Although dolls are often seen as obvious "vehicle[s] of feminine socialization," recent ethnographic research, as well as historical analysis of memoirs, diaries and oral histories, reveal a long-standing tradition of gender role subversion and rejection of adult authority within girls’ doll play (Formanek-Brunell, 1998; Gussin Paley, 2004). This emerging research reveals the familiar, but academically neglected, practices of brutal doll torture, doll-body modification, doll bashing and doll funerals. As Formanek-Brunell (1998: 374), describes, although many girls (and boys) played with dolls in prescribed ways, “[E]vidence reveals that doll players pushed at the margins of acceptable feminine and genteel behaviour." For some girls, dolls became a valuable tool for thwarting social norms and undermining restrictions. For example, during the nineteenth-century “doll parties” were often promoted as a beneficial and appropriate activity for girls. Designed as a primarily aesthetic activity (girls were meant to show off their dolls and look at each others’ doll clothes), “doll parties” were regulated by a complex set of rules and etiquette which were circulated in advice books and women’s magazines. In practice, however, the events often transformed into active play dates that involved sliding down the stairs on tea trays and “smashing their unsuspecting dolls to bits” (Formanek-Brunell 1998: 375).

Everybody's Talking About: Magi-Nation

This week, everyone's been talking about a new kids' MMOG project in the works that will tie into an up-and-coming (and Canadian-based) property called Magi-Nation. The property was first introduced as a collectible card game (CCG), Magi-Nation: Duel, which was heavily inspired by Pokémon and other collectible kids' properties. It had a few incarnations as a videogame, mostly aiming for the same type of CCG-Gameboy crossover success enjoyed by Pokémon (hmmm...I think I see a pattern emerging ;). This past year, Canadian-based Cookie Jar Entertainment launched an animated series to tie-into the CCG (and remaining digital games, I suppose, which includes a cell phone game) -- appearing as part of the CW's Kids' WB Saturday morning cartoon block, as well as on Canadian public broadcaster CBC -- along with a first, smaller online game, Magi-Nation Arena, as well as various ancillary toys and product lines (including a new CCG). The new MMOG will foster and supplement the emerging Magi-Nation media brand, and will surely have some pretty close links to the tie-in card game (I'm guessing that "secret codes" with every purchase will be somehow involved). Here's the description from the company press release:

Magi-Nation: Battle for the Moonlands is based on the popular children's animated television series Magi-Nation, which follows the adventures of 15-year-old Tony Jones, an average teen from Earth who finds himself mysteriously transported to the magical world of Magi-Nation. In these Moonlands Tony befriends two young Magi heroes-in-training who join him on a journey to defeat the evil Shadow Magi who are out to rule their world. Along with their trusty collection of Dream Creatures these new friends must solve riddles, battle evil and discover the secrets hidden in each region on the Moonlands. During their adventures, they just might discover some secrets about themselves.

According to Cynopsis Kids!, the game will be beta-testing this December (unfortunately it's a closed beta, but you can apply here to become a tester). What makes this web-based branded game unique is that while much of the game will be free (i.e. ad-based), it will also incorporate a micro-payment or microtransactions model, in which players will pay small fees to upgrade characters, etc. As Next Generation reports, while this strategy isn't all that new, it is not that common among kids' sites/properties. As Kris Graft writes:

Battle for the Moonlands will be a browser-based game that is supported by advertising as well as microtransactions, an increasingly common business model. What makes Moonlands more unique is that it will be putting microtransactions in the hands of kids. Finding a chunk of charges for virtual clothing and spells on a credit card bill would likely irk some parents, but [Cookie Jar senior VP of digital media Ken Locker] insists there will be restrictions set in place.

"We want to make sure that parents are in control of any online spending, so we are developing a number of ways for parents to be involved in Magi-Nation purchasing activity," Locker says. [Notably, however]"We are also working on implementing a number of payment options so that we do not rely solely on credit cards as heavily as many online games."

Hmmm....perhaps this is where the "secret code included with every purchase" will come in. Either way, it certainly seems like Cookie Jar is casting the widest net possible in its bid to become the next Pokémon. In Virtual Worlds News, Locker is quoted describing Cookie Jar's goal to:

"[R]each kids wherever they are, be it via through television, consumer products or online worlds. [...] We are thrilled to be working on such an ambitious undertaking as Magi-Nation: Battle for the Moonlands and can’t wait to bring the Magi-Nation online entertainment package to our fans. Our young viewers are extremely Internet savvy and routinely monitor their TV shows online. With this project we will extend that connection and enable players to have a fully interactive experience with their favorite characters in one of their favorite worlds."

Indeed! Find out more by following the various links above, or follow the ongoing developments firsthand by visiting the Magi-Nation website.

The Coolest Girl In School, or Bully w/ a Pink Bow

Another great article from YPulse this week, this time around a new Australian mobile game that's being promoted as "GTA for Girls". Here's an excerpt from anastasia's post:

Do girls need their own GTA? A female Australian mobile game developer thinks they do, which is why she created "The Coolest Girl In School." The game is provoking parental outcry Down Under. [...] [It also] Sounds like the game is full of mixed messages -- being a "mean girl" wins the game, i. e. "lie, bitch and flirt your way to the top of the high school ladder," but according to the article about the game in The Daily Telegraph, risky behaviors, i.e. drinking, drugs, etc. do have consequences. So if the argument is that Grand Theft Auto allows boys to live out their fantasies of mass murder and beating up prostitutes, than the Coolest Girl in School lets "good girls" live out their fantasies of being "bad" and popular?

For more coverage, check out Tweenage Wasteland and this article in The Ottawa Citizen by Misty Harris.

Reading the game's description and taking a step back from the controversy a little, it seems to me that we've seen all of this before...last year, in fact, when Rockstar's identically-themed Bully was released and everyone was up in arms about how it promoted bullying by "rewarding" bullying behaviours. In Bully, the player advances by spreading rumours, rebelling against teachers, pitting cliques against each other, trying to impress the cool kids, fending off constant attacks from larger bullies, dressing to impress the cool kids, going on dates with and/or merely smooching with the right people (girl or boy). If you got caught, you would get punished. Actions had repercussions -- every move you made to fit in with one group put you at odds with the others. Etc. Etc. Now, replace some of the more overt forms of physical violence with emotional or psychological violence, and what you've got sounds a heck of a lot like The Coolest Girl in School.

I played a big chunk of Bully last year for my thesis, along with another controversial game called Rule of Rose. Like Bully, Rule of Rose dealt with bullying, although the fact that it was girls doing and receiving it seemed to be enough to send that game out of the realm of public debate and into the realm of censorship. The game was banned in Europe, and had late releases in the US and Australia because of the controversy around it. Meanwhile, although Bully had originally attracted more public attention, it ultimately sort of came and went without a hitch (well, a Jack Thompson court case, but that was par for the course last year). My own opinion about both games is that not only are they not nearly as violent as most, but that they address violence in a way that could actually be much more meaningful and value-laden for young people (not children, but teens and young adults) than, say, some gangland fantasy or alien killing spree. Both games are attempts -- albeit flawed -- to delve into an enormously significant and serious issue...far from merely "promoting" bullying, they each explore bullying in complex ways that have not been discussed in the ensuing debates, which instead seem to limit themselves to whether or not the games should exist. Which brings me back to The Coolest Girl in School, which finds itself as the newest focus of this same essentializing discourse about whether games are "good" or "bad", and questions of how we can make these bad games disappear.

I'm not saying that The Coolest Girl in School will contain the same depth and intelligence as Rule of Rose, or that it will bring the player through the many layers of moral ambiguity that underlie high-school social hierarchies the way Bully did. All I'm saying is that we can't write a game off outright just because it deals with "unpleasant" issues, or addresses them in an exaggerated or unconventional way. That sort of reactionary attitude is what leads to censorship, and places dangerous pressure on the industry to limit itself to "family friendly" fare, even when designing games for adults or older kids and teens. Let's play the game first, and then have an informed discussion about it afterward.

Update: I just heard about another new game that fits this genre, called Dangerous High School Girls in Trouble. Check out Leigh Alexander's review on Playthisthing.com.

Two New Films About Video Game Controversies

Courtesy of Game Politics, news about two new documentary films examining videogame controversies (and specifically focused on the videogame violence debate) that are slowly circulating through the festival circuit. The first, directed by Danny Ledonne -- the maker of the controversial game Super Columbine Massacre RPG -- follows the controversy surrounding the game, in the wake of the Columbine massacre and the ensuing anti-game political climate. The film, Playing Columbine: A True Story of a Video Game Controversy, was screened at the GameCity festival in Nottingham. You can check out Ian Bogost's coverage of the film at Water Cooler Games, or an early review at Kotaku here. As Bogost writes:

The terrific irony is that Playing Columbine has an infinitely greater chance of getting picked up for broader distribution of some kind at a festival compared to the game. Of course, it also has an infinitely greater chance of actually getting shown at a festival in which it is accepted as a selection.

Meanwhile, the Kotaku posting questions the film's seeming self-centeredness:

In his latest work, Ledonne has created a documentary about the aftermath of his game about the aftermath of the massacre. Judging by the rather short trailer, it feels like the documentary is a little too much about Ledonne and not enough about the very real and complicated issues involving both the shooting and the idea of tacking serious subject matters with video games.

You can judge for yourself if/when the film comes your way. In the meantime, you can check out the trailer on Youtube.

The second film, Mortal Kombat by Spencer Halpin, is a much more inclusive look at the history and scope of videogame controversies. As Ledonne himself describes:

It seamlessly blends together the history of the medium, highlighting the colors and textures of early videogames, the controversy-sparking 16-bit era, and the graphical sophistication of the modern platforms… The film is a visual treat from first frame to last…

While the trailer for Mortal Kombat appears to build a case against videogame violence, Ledonne maintains that the film actually supplies a "summarily decisive blow to the anti-game critics of the world." You can also read a very early review by Bija Gutoff at Apple, and/or watch the very spiffy trailer on Youtube, while you wait for a screening/copy to make its way to your area. Note: When the trailer was originally launched online last year, it was met with a lot of criticism from the games community, for its apparent sensationalizing of the issues and anti-game stance. Ledonne's comments are thus important, as it indicates that the film paints quite a different portrait than what is seen in the trailer.

p.s. Those of you with an interest in finding good documentaries about videogame culture and issues might want to check out King of Kong.

Human Values and Virtual Worlds

The Virtual Worlds Forum, which took place in London last week, started off with a bit of a bang, as keynote speaker and industry veteran Lord Puttnam gave an opening speech bemoaning the growing number of toy-based virtual worlds aimed at kids, calling them a "threat" to basic human values. According to the BBC coverage, Puttnam fears that the only thing "children will learn from these virtual spaces is that they are first and foremost consumers. He urged creators to build more moral virtual worlds that instill in children the values that societies need." Puttnam, an Oscar award winning movie producer, pointed specifically to games like Webkinz, BarbieGirls and UBFunkeys, stating:

"Are we absolutely sure that this is the very best we can offer young people?" he asked. "Do we really want them to think of themselves as not much more than consumers?"

He said: "Might we not prefer to build worlds that encourage those same values and skills we wish them to exercise in the real world?"

"The challenge ahead is this - to ensure that virtual worlds are increasingly places that offer real meaning to their lives and in the real world to learn from the sense of community and collaboration that's been experienced in virtual worlds," he said.

Following these comments, the article quotes a number of CEO-types running toy-based games for kids in defense of the practice, many of whom say that using virtual worlds to communicate with children is simply "natural" since they're already so familiar with online culture, virtuality, etc. The article quotes Matthias Mikshe (founder of Stardoll), Alice Taylor (editor for education at Channel 4) and Marc Goodchild (head of interactive at BBC Children's), but these comments all focus on the popularity of virtual spaces/games among kids (and even parents), without addressing the more important aspects of Puttnam's remarks [***Update: See Comments section for Alice's clarification about her own "response," which was taken somewhat out of context, and check out some of her own postings about the Forum, BarbieGirls, etc.***]. The only game-maker to even marginally address the issue of consumer discourses within branded games was Mark Hansen, director of business development for Lego Universe. Relying on the old "chicken and egg" defense of consumer culture, Hansen had this to say:

"Is it positioned to sell more product or as an extended experience with the product they have already bought?" he asked. "Kids are very smart and will spot that really quickly."

Wow. I'm quite impressed with Puttnam's speech and his attempts to open up the discussion to something a little more complex and meaningful than we usually see in the public debates around a) kids and technology, and b) commercialization. While it's unfortunate that none of the game-makers were able/allowed to really construct an adequate response (and didn't their parents ever tell them that 'popularity' isn't everything?), at least the notions of consumer socialization, and of commercialized play as a pedagogy of consumerism have been brought to the industry's table.

Advergaming Defined

The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has just published the first in a series of papers that will review the current (and future) state of advergaming -- its platforms, demographics, player behaviours and best practices. In addition to summarizing the most recent data on advergaming and usage statistics (financial, PC/console ownership rates, etc.), this first paper also provides a detailed overview (and very useful categorization) of the various forms of advergaming currently in circulation, as follows:

Advergames: Custom-made games specifically designed around a product or service (e.g. Burger King - Sneak King);

Dynamic In-game: Advertising elements within a connected game itself, that can be dynamically changed depending on location, day of week and time of day (e.g. vending machine fronts, billboards and posters);

Inter-level Ads: Display or digital video ads shown during natural breaks in gameplay, such as between levels ("inter-level") or between rounds of play;

Game Skinning: Includes game sponsorship of display units around the game, and/or custom branding integration into the game;

Product Placement: Integrated brand messaging, sponsorship and/or products into a game (e.g. beverages, mobile phones and cars);

Sponsorships: Advertiser owns 100% share-of-voice in and around an existing game, such as sponsorship of a tournament, zone (level), or session of gameplay. Advertiser might also sponsor the release of new exclusive content associated with a game;

Static In-game: Advertising elements within a game that may not be changed. These may reside within game play itself or on menus, leader boards, etc. This type of ad format is also referred to as "Hard-Coded" advertising;

Post-Game: Ads shown following completion of the game;

Pre-Game: Display or digital video advertisements shown before gameplay begins as the game is loading.

Read the full report here.

Okami Lives!

Great news on the gaming front: Eurogamer, Slashdot and Joystiq are all reporting that last year's critically-acclaimed yet sadly commercially-ignored Okami will get a second crack at the big leagues, when it is transported to the Wii this coming spring (2008). You might remember me going on and on about this game when I played it early this year. And given the unique forms of gameplay enabled by Wii technology, I'm pretty excited to play the remake. Here's an excerpt from the Eurogamer article:

Celebrated on PS2 for its absorbing puzzle and action adventure mechanics, gripping narrative inspired by Japanese folklore and beautiful watercolour visuals, its rebirth on Wii has been much hyped.

The game also lends itself rather well to the potential of Nintendo's Wiimote for control. Amaterasu's Celestial Brush - a paintbrush used in combat and for solving puzzles - is a perfect fit for the Wiimote, and so it proves, while combat will also include various "motion-controlled physical attacks".

I completely agree that this game is pretty much the perfect candidate for adaptation to the Wii - even though the original PS2 version was amazing and groundbreaking, the opportunity to draw with the Wiimote is going to be something else entirely. Since playing Okami, I often find myself wishing I could pause whatever game I'm playing to draw in a Slash or Lightening Bolt. I also wonder if the Wii version will retain the original T rating...there's was really no reason for it. Other than a couple of subversive jokes, there's nothing "crude" or suggestive or particularly violent about it. Anyway, keep your eyes peeled for a Wii trailer.

Massively Preschooler Online Games

David Kaplan has written a piece on PaidContent.org about Nickelodeon's MyNoggin (which launched yesterday) and Disney's upcoming Bunnytown (to be launched later this week[???] -- the article says yes, but I can't find confirmation). Both are virtual worlds, and both are aimed squarely at preschoolers.

Nick's MyNoggin, which launched yesterday, is described by Kaplan as:

[A] casual game that is the main feature of a subscription-based, ad-free service for preschoolers and their parents. The game is described as “curriculum-based learning through game play.” The game also serves to promote Nick Jr. and Noggin characters, which game players use as icons.

The site itself advertises games that "progress with child's achievement", and reports that will let parents monitor their child's in-game learning. Meanwhile, Disney is expected to release further details about its Bunnytown site, which will tie into a new Saturday morning Disney Channel puppet show premiering next month (check out the trailer here).

Although Kaplan argues that the sites have different strategies in mind -- emphasizing that MyNoggin will be ad-free, while ignoring 'character branding' as its own highly effective ad strategy -- it's clear that both aim to cross-promote ancillary products and media (For a different incarnation of the same article and argument, check out Daisy Whitney's post at TV Week, which positions the sites as the "two different approaches" to creating virtual worlds for preschoolers). Nickelodeon might couch this in educational/participatory culture discourses, but Disney is much more upfront about their expectations around branded play. As the article explains:

Disney’s online offerings, on the other hand, are intended to drive viewership and product purchases. Mindy Stockfield, VP of digital media at Disney Channel and Jetix, tells TVWeek that the entertainment giant is giving kids exactly what they want. Stockfield pointed to research, commissioned by Disney, that showed viewers have a particular affinity for particular shows and brands, saying, “By playing our games and being part of the content, it engages them so much they want to watch the show more.”

What Kaplan and Whitney don't mention is that Nick and Disney are not alone in creating immersive online experiences for preschoolers. Just last week, Sesame Workshop launched its much anticipated Panwapa, a virtual world that seeks to teach 4-to-7 year olds about global citizenship, and introduce a new transnational team of Sesame muppets. For a great description of the site's contents, check out this posting at Children's Media Consultant. Similarly, if I heard correctly at last week's aoir conference, PBS Kids is also planning a virtual world or community for preschoolers. So far, all of these initiatives appear to emphasize "educational" content -- likely as a strategy to get parents on board with letting their 4-year-olds play online. And I'm sure we'll be hearing a LOT about "safety" as well, though how either of these dimensions are to be defined and implemented remains to be explored.

New NPD Report: The Small Child Gamer

Earlier this week, Beth Snyder Bulik at AdAge covered the new NPD Group report on children and videogames, identifying "6" as the new entry age into "serious" gaming. Here's an excerpt of Bulik's article:

NPD Group's annual survey on children and video games, released this week, found that while older kids still dominate in time spent per week on gaming, the most significant spike in hours played occurs between the 2-to-5-year-old and 6-to-8-year-old groups. First-, second- and third-graders spend 75% more time than they used to on gaming, adding an average of three hours per week to their playing time.

"When kids get to the 6-to-8-year-old age range is when we see them turn into more serious gamers. Not only does the amount of time they spend playing games increase the most dramatically, but they migrate from using 'kid' systems to using more portable and console systems as well," NPD Group analyst Anita Frazier said in a news release.

I think that this is the first study I've come across that considers the shift from "kid systems" to regular gaming devices. Fascinating stuff, and I'm surprised it's not something we hear about more often. The article also provides details about kids gaming habits:

The study also found that one-third of children ages 2 to 17 spend more time playing video games than they did a year ago. Half of the kids were classified as light users, at five or fewer hours played per week, while the other half were medium, heavy or "super" users, playing six to 16 hours or more every week.

"At 58%, personal computers have the highest percentage of personal use for gaming among kids age 2 to 17," NPD Group Director David Riley said. "Not only is the PC the most accessible, but because of the dynamic nature of the internet, it tends to be less expensive for marketers than console and portable platforms."

So, it seems that part of what we're talking about here are online casual games, like Club Penguin perhaps, or even BarbieGirls. Bulik, and her interviewees at Ubisoft, are optimistic that this will translate into revenue for the traditional game industry as well, as companies move into the small child market with new casual games for kids. However, she also considers some of the impact this move might have on the commercialization of kids' culture: "While more kiddie playtime does represent opportunity for marketers and game publishers, the increasingly younger demographic and time spent on gaming raises some eyebrows -- and concerns."

She gives some space to Robert Weissman of Commercial Alert, who raises the issue of child obesity and its potential links to gaming -- focusing on in-game advertising! He states:

Advertisers and marketers have penetrated deep into the video-gaming world across all demographics. They're delivering sophisticated, tailored and repeated messages to children that their parents don't even know about," he said.

Bulik's reply is a surprisingly ill-informed defense of the in-game ad industry, claiming:

That may have been true for some marketers -- the most often accused are food, beverage and kids' entertainment brands -- but ad-serving companies that deliver in-game marketing, such as Double Fusion, for instance, are staying out of kids' views.

If there is one area of gaming where ads have run completely rampant it's kids' online and casual gaming. Just because this one marketer "stays away" from kids' games (and adds that they also refuse to in-game advertise tobacco and porn...wow), hardly supports Bulik's implication that advergaming or in-game advertising to kids is limited in any significant way. The article ends with some lip service to how parents are the real gatekeepers, and that game producers should employ a double marketing strategy, one that targets kids, and another aimed at parents that "emphasize[s] the creative or educational aspects of the game". I wonder if these guys have read Sold Separately? Anyway, way to set up the one critical perspective of this issue as some sort of straw man argument to dismiss...why even bother including an opposing perspective if it's just to pretend that the concerns expressed are unfounded or irrelevant?

Read the complete article here.
Read the GameDaily BIZ coverage here.
Read the original NPD Group press release here.

Cerise Takes on Zombies and the Final Girl

Feminist game magazine Cerise has a new Halloween-themed issue out, that touches upon a number of game studies issues and games, from marketing survival horror games, to Fatal Frame and Clover's Final Girl theory, to gender representation in Resident Evil 4. I've been reading this publication since June (about a month after its launch) and overall have been quite impressed by its diversity and non-stereotypical feminine / feminist / gender studies approach to game issues/theory, game reviews, game-related crafts and -- most of all -- building a new online community for women gamers and game writers. They're also linked to the Iris Gaming Network, a very cool resource for women gamers (as well as game professionals and researchers). Even more exciting is their new call for submissions for upcoming theme issues on the following topics:

November 2007
Theme: Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby
Submission deadline: October 20, 2007

December 2007 Issue
Theme: Gaming as an Industry
Submission deadline: November 20th, 2007

January 2008 Issue
Theme: New Year, New Games
Submission deadline: December 20th, 2007

February 2008 Issue
Theme: Princess Power
Submission deadline: January 20th, 2008

For a full description of these themes and details about what they're looking for (i.e. submission guidelines), check out their submissions page here.

May I Recommend: John Harris' Game Design Essentials

John Harris over at Gamasutra has just released the second installment of his Game Design Essentials series, which I would like to recommend to those of you with an interest in game studies. The format of the series is to overview 20 case study games that best exemplify key game forms and issues within digital game design. While written from a practitioner perspective, the articles (so far) deal with numerous themes of interest to game scholars (and players!). The first installment was 20 Difficult Games, and the most recent is 20 Open World Games. The "Design Lessons" and links provided at the end of each short case study are also great resources to have on hand. Enjoy!