4iP Blog

The notion of ‘serious play’ and ‘serious games’ is something that needs much further exploration. Games can be training utilities, scenario mapping exercises and even a wonderful nexus between learning, archiving and recreation.  Given the range of content resources accessible through Channel 4, I feel that 4iP has an opportunity to look at location based games, and providing experiences of places through mobile devices and connection to other users in situ, as well as to facilitate the development of games of strategy and education. 

And while I have enormous respect for the high quality gaming technologies available in various centres in the UK, there’s a huge opportunity for investment in lower-tech games which are more creative and iterative.  Technology for games which involve competitive and collaborative story-telling, rich-media sharing and problem solving are not merely available, but cheap.  Yet they are not being facilitated, except through data sharing and lifestreaming services such as Flickr, seesmic or Twitter.  And because there is no context for information sharing, they often appear chaotic and it can be hard to articulate their value as tools for a larger, contextually specific game.  But 4iP could be offering opportunities to develop a digital archive on places, ideas and events, with users having the opportunity to be recognised as contributors to a professionally edited record. 

A connected audience is one which can have active participation in an endless series of games.  Interactivity is now not merely limited to SMSing or phoning to vote someone on or off a program.  In a mixed media model, it’s possible to have audiences as producers; active creators and directors of content.  Games could be established to encourage mashing together of a variety of content sources, contributed voluntarily, but collectively competing for quality/popularity.  4iP can and should be facilitating such games.

I would start by banishing the phrase “serious games” to the furthest reaches of an icy wasteland somewhere in a corner of World of Warcraft or Runescape!

Games can be hugely valuable in delivering public service outcomes like education, but they need to be entertaining to do so, so that people engage with them.  Then there is the whole potential of using game technologies to create content ("machinima") at a much reduced cost compared to traditional animation or video production - allowing a range of content to be developed at a cost that could be commercially viable without mass audiences.

There’s an interesting article in Wired today that talks about weight loss as a game. Weightwatchers use a points system that can be tracked online, and the analogy is the kind of trick that makes role playing games (RPGs) addictive and fun.

There was a similar principle in play at Chore Wars, which turns household chores into an adventure game.

I think there real opportunity to turn educational objectives, social actions and other areas of life into a series of small challenges and rewards. ‘Recycle Quest’ or ‘Heroes of Piano Practice’ perhaps…

The psychology of tracking progress and charting yourself against your peers or companions can make a significant impact on behaviour.

Not every new games development need necessarily be graphically astonishing or cutting edge in terms of narrative. It could be as simple as ‘You went to the pub and didn’t light up? Congratulations - you’ve earned 50 quit points, which moves you up to a Level 5 Non-Smoking Wizard.’

I’d agree with you re banishing ‘serious games’ as a term, but there is some benefit in what Lego originally termed ‘serious play’ (see http://www.seriousplay.com/11400/THE PROMISE) and which Michael Schrage (http://ebusiness.mit.edu/schrage/), Brian Sutton-Smith (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/SUTAMB.html) and Pat Kane (http://theplayethic.com/) have said about play and games as facilitating innovation, understanding and decision making.  It may be poor terminology, but the thinking behind it has value. 

Totally agree that educational outcomes need to be entertaining in games.  I’d even go further, saying that they need to be competitive, or at least collaborative and creative (but preferably competitive AND creative) to be entertaining.  I guess what I’m arguing is that games that may not necessarily be as sophisticated as a FPS (First Person Shooter) or even Second Life oriented experiences to have value as games.  Games based on machinima and simple mashups of pre-existing technologies are both possible and low-cost, and should be considered by 4iP as a vehicle for content engagement.  As you note, Darren, these collaborative, low cost technologies can be commercially viable for niche audiences - so they are entirely within the scope of 4iP’s activities.

Being ever mindful of our partners in 4iP I wouldn’t banish the term serious games to the icy waters not until two very reputatble universities in the west midlands rebrand.  I think Joanne makes a great point about there being “a huge opportunity for investment in lower-tech games which are more creative and iterative....” Exactly right.

I’m also conscious of another opportunity which Joanne raises which is “location based games, and providing experiences of places through mobile devices and connection to other users in situ...”

If we could find ways of doing this that was for a wider public rather than an avant-niche it would be a big step forward. The ip of 4iP is innovation for public and not as can often be interpreted innovation for the few.

‘Avant-niche’ nice.
In advertising we call them ‘a couple of wazzocks with iphones, running around the southbank’.
(We are usually talking about ourselves)

Joanne says “Games based on machinima and simple mashups of pre-existing technologies are both possible and low-cost, and should be considered by 4iP as a vehicle for content engagement.”

The answer is they are and they will and as long as we can get strong ideas that will be publically valuable they will be a priority area.

So that I am not seen as always in total agreement with Joanne. I’m less of a Twitter evangelist and thought the article in Tech Crunch sounded like they were cheerful investors. Twitter is the teas-maid of web 02.

Twitter may well be the Teas-Maid.  But I, for one, enjoy a good cup of tea.

Its a good analogy Joanne - put it out there and we can share the royalties. All the best Earl Gray.

I would ‘seriously’ caution people about getting bogged down int he semantics over the term ‘serious games’. It is a debate that has been taking place in this space for several years - and one in which I have often been engaged - and I understand how people can have a reticence over it’s use. BUT - the bigger problem in terms of unleashing this medium on unaware customer bases (government, corporate, education etc) is that no other term has been found that (a) conveys the sheer depth and breadth of what it is about, or (b) gained anything like as much traction worldwide.

We see terms like ‘immersive learning simulations’, ‘games-based learning’, ‘persuasive games’ and many more banded about. A key problem is that people use the terms to describe that what THEY do not what the entire space is capable of doing.

My advice: stick with Serious Games and concentrate on conveying what your particular take on the medium does, for whom and how rather than wasting energies on trying to find a better group of words.

Kevin Corti
CEO, PIXELearning
http://www.pixelearning.com

Thanks for your reply Kevin I agree about getting bogged down in the semantics. Focus and context are probaly more useful, since 4iP has emerged out of Channel 4’s proven reputation in content innovation - as opposed to gaming protocol - then my personal view is that we should focus on what we bring, rather than try to replicate what’s out there and already done well. Context is important too. The 4iP fund is for public innovation principally in the UK and through partnership. All of our projects should have that wider ambition at their heart. So rather than be distracted by the multiplicity of names we could invent ‘interactive recreational knowledge appliances’ we should get on with projects that are unambiguously providing an innovation in games for an unambiguous public purpose.

Thanks for the support Stuart.

I am not sure if this is the appropriate forum for this follow up question, so you may want to email me....

After having trawled through the various material online and offline around 4IP over the last few weeks, I’m still finding myself unsure to the extent to which C4 and partners such as Screen WM are viewing this funding initiative in the wider context of all digital media as opposed to ‘an extension of TV and film.’ Obviously a good game IP (whether serious or otherwise - LOL) can translate to TV or Film, but I’d like your view on whether this is very important in the context of this particular funding or completely de-linked?

All the best,

Kevin Corti
kevin DOT corti AT pixelearning DOT com

Kevin - you asked “to what extent..C4 and partners such as Screen WM are viewing this funding initiative in the wider context of all digital media as opposed to ‘an extension of TV and film.’

The answer is we are veiwing ity very widely. I will email you separately but three things that are worth noting and which are fundamental to 4iP:

1. It is expressly not a TV or film fund. See it more as a fund that can work across web02, interactive, peer-to-peer media, mobile platforms ,etc etc. It is to work in areas away from the conventional TV delivery platforms. Channel 4 has a separate multi-platform budget to brand extend TV into new media. 

2. The partnership funding agreement we have with SWM is non-exclusive, so for example Pixel, University of Birmingham and say Electronic Arts could fund a project without the involvement of Channel 4.

3. By siting our digital managers in regional centres we want them to engage more deeply with all the creative communities and definitely not TV production. Already we have over 1000 registered creative companies only 3% are traditional TV indies.

The one thing I’m proud of is that it was Channel 4 that innovated to make this happen, not games companies, not web02 companies and not mobile media organisations. So what ever the preceived faults thats an achievement.

Speak soon.

Hi all,
I’ve been following the discussion with great interest and I have to agree with Stuart, the definitions and ideas of what constitutes a ‘serious’ - or indeed ‘casual’, ‘indie’ or ‘AAA’ game are becoming less and less relevant. 

The industry as a whole is still fixated with the classic console-based retail titles, based upon the recognised genres and FPS/RTS/MMO type games.

However, this is probably the most exciting and creative time within the overall gaming world, since the initial surge of interest in home computers in the mid 1980’s.

Around the periphery of the games sector, there are hundreds, if not thousands of fascinating, weird, undefinable and outright compelling projects, organisations and individuals, who are doing amazing things with game technology and opening up the sector in ways which we could not even have dreamed over, say five years ago.

The ongoing march of technology means that whole new platforms are opening up for creators and developers (virtual consoles, mobiles, etc.) and these are being complemented by direct channels through to the consumer, which bypass the traditional publishers to greater or lesser degrees.  This in turn makes it possible for the developers to take their own ideas and concepts through to the market, instead of having to rely on major media companies (I’m thinking EA/Sony here, not C4...) who are notoriously risk averse.

This, combined with the lower costs of creating games and entertainment content (we’ll start an discussion about what a ‘game’ is, in another thread), is making the games sector - culturally and economically - for more exciting than it’s been over the last decade.

While these platforms and technologies may be limited in comparison with the hugely powerful consoles, they’re forcing the developers to become more creative and look for new possibilities within the technology. 

Just as an example, WAP & SMS are technologies which never had their full gaming potential explored, since as soon as Java become standard in phones, every publisher and mobile network demanded Java games, with their bright colours and twitch style play.  Yet these technologies can be used to create utterly different forms of gaming, networking and communication.  All packed within technologies which people are now (fairly) comfortable with and which live on a device which everyone has in their pocket or handbag.

It’s brilliant.  Alongside the machinima and mashups mentioned earlier, which take games technology in new directions, we also have the growing recognition that ‘gaming’ or ‘gameplay’ is not confined to a single platform but can be tied into almost anything.  Phoning or texting Big Brother makes the experience more ‘interactive’ and is creating a whole new generation who are entirely comfortable with the idea that you should be able to ‘play with’ all of your media, no matter which cable it comes from, or which screen it appears on.

The mainstream publishers are still suspicious, despite their snapping up mobile and casual developers, they’re still looking to stick things in a box and throw it on a shelf.

This leaves the outskirts of the games world alone to experiment and well, play. 

The games industry has a huge problem with baggage - what constitutes a ‘real’ game.  What a game should actually DO.

4IP can skip all of this and look at the digital entertainment market as a whole.

I think this is one of the most positive things to happen to the culture of gaming in Scotland since Lemmings and I can’t wait to see the first results coming out of the project.

(I will of course be bothering Ewan on a weekly basis to point him to the odder, weirder and more astonishing things going on out here).

Scotland is the new Japan you know, we’re just a little more shy about telling people…

Hi Brian

Thanks for contributing. Its a debate that you know very well and having your involvement will be fantastic. Its remarkable how quickly relatively new forms of creative engagement can inhabit baggage. Ewan is keen to make this a dedicated strand of our 4iP work, and Alice Taylor in our interactive-education team is also a committed innovator in gaming, so I’m hopeful we can make things works in Scotland, West Midlands and Yorkshire where there is funding and a creative commuity of scale and diversity.

Stuart

It’s nice to see a reputable media company like Channel 4 taking games seriously.  For a long time serious gaming has been an oxymoron but it’s clear that games are an important part of our culture now.

Nintendo have taken gaming formats to the next level, as the following article demonstrates - http://www.sundaymercury.net/entertainment-news/computer-games/computer-game-reviews/2008/09/30/family-trainer-66331-21928236/

It’s about time that parents and teachers alike started harnessing the potential of games, as they’re not going anywhere.