Radio Play

Radio has long been a brilliant medium for provoking empathy.. so what if we were to take the "video

Digital Collector’s Edition Soundtracks: A Missed Opportunity?

Steam now offers game soundtrack downloads - but is this really any different to collectors' edition

Side-By-Side: Timeline and +Me

In which I muse upon Facebook Timeline and the new Google+ profile layout. Which feels more homely,

 

Radio Play

May 9, 2012 in Miscellaneous, Projects

A recent submission to BigThink has gotten me to thinking about the possibilities of interactive radio, or audio gaming. I hesitate to call this ‘interactive audio’, because that particular term has come to signify art installations and the likes of Rez and Music 2000. However, to take the “video” right out of video games and present the player with an interactive, audio-only experience.. would that be possible? Has it already been done?

Here’s Jad Abumrad’s video, on how radio creates empathy through co-authorship of an imagined experience:

I have to confess an obstacle to my usual lines of research, given that there are already slews of interactive audio games and software, and so-called ‘interactive’ radio stations. If there are any audio games already out here, I’m finding it very hard indeed to spot them.

Radio is, of course, already a fairly interactive medium, best expressed in talk shows. Through telephones and with the advent of email, text messaging and Twitter, these shows have allowed their listeners to put their views across and so change the course of discussion, with similar interactivity to be seen in many music shows. Never do I recall seeing the radio equivalent of an RPG, though; a radio play in which the listener can choose which direction the protagonist should take.

I think the closest I’ve gotten is a board game named CD Adventure: Search for the Lost City, which is an audio-reliant board game. Most games which incorporate sound do so simply to replace the rolling of dice, or they do as this game and Mall Madness do, and direct players towards certain tasks. In CD Adventure, certain squares on the board ask you to take a card, which in turn asks you to skip to a certain track on a CD. Because each card corresponds to a location on the board (swamps, rapids and so on), these tracks can then set a proper scene, with sound effects and character actors to deliver instructions to the player.

The actual gameplay could be accomplished just as easily by reading the instructions off the card, but CD Adventure was designed so that characters from within the game would seem to come to life. By doing this we remove the common act of a player reading aloud from a card, in which they are the deliverer of information to everyone else. Instead that duty falls to an apparent external entity; an agent whose actions influence everyone else on the board. It’s a powerful tool for uniting each player on the board, rather than having them constantly compete. Atmosfear is another game which does this to great effect, albeit through a linear video rather than a stack of audio files.

My friends and I developed a particular hatred for one character whose name I cannot now recall, whose smarmy voice could often be heard sending my token back to the beginning of the board. This creates a far different social experience to that of a player whose own roll apparently dooms them or grants success, where they’re left blaming merely chance or the card in front of them for their misfortune. Other board games in which instructions are read from cards do not have this element of theatre to them, and so do not have recognisable characters. Yet we do develop exactly this sort of relationship with the animated – and often vocalised – citizens of our digital toyboxes.

At a basic level, I wonder what could be achieved by having ‘make your own adventure’ books available on audiotape, or creating horror games in which players may be startled into wakefulness and led down new paths in a story, similar again to the video board game, Atmosfear. At a more egalitarian level, I wonder at the possibilities for developing games for the blind.

One imagines that a truly rich audio gaming experience would have the capacity for spoken feedback, and this has been within our technological grasp for years now. Considering we can command our Xbox 360s to play media, and our iPhones to invite friends to our parties, surely we can ask Kinect to equip the lit torch, or direct Siri take the left-hand turn down a steampunk alleyway?

We’d have to rethink the genres we could port to audio gaming though, and we’d probably have to invent some new ones. To propose an audio-only shooter is ridiculous, but imagine the possibilities of an interactive detective story, or a strategy game which is played as though you are Mission Control, receiving communicae via radio from your moonbase. The latter could still be done using a screen, but what changes would we see to the drama behind a game which doesn’t involve an aerial view and flashing green placement grids?

I’m confident in one aspect, though: radio has proven that audio can be a powerful tool for evoking empathy. Games have made huge strides in the past decade, towards achieving the sort of richness which books and film take for granted. Could a push into audio gaming show us a new path?

Digital Collector’s Edition Soundtracks: A Missed Opportunity?

April 25, 2012 in Miscellaneous

Steam’s catalogue moved in an interesting new direction yesterday, as the digital download service announced the option to purchase soundtracks for Darwinia and Defcon. My heart leapt at this, as while game soundtracks are much easier to find now than they were 10 years ago, many do still ask you to import a physical CD from overseas, buy a collectors’ edition, or hunt through reams of MP3 download services. I can’t even recall where I got the Darwinia soundtrack from, in the end, but it stands as a grand example of chiptune music, and it’s a pleasure to see Trash 80 and DMA-SC’s work made more accessible.

Unfortunately, if we look closer, we see that Steam is not quite making a bold step into the convenient sale of game soundtracks. Both are offered as DLC options, which require us to buy the base game first. I’m unsure quite how this works out, but I assume and hope that the MP3 files are simply ‘unlocked’ by having the respective game in your Steam library, and that they act as ordinary music from then on. It is an incentive to buy more, whether you principally want the game or its soundtrack, but for me personally, it feels like a missed opportunity. The possibilities offered by a digital download platform have been ignored in favour of an existing, retail model.

Side-By-Side: Timeline and +Me

April 20, 2012 in Reviews

 

Embedded within my (rather scattered)  web routine are the inevitable, all-too-frequent checks on Facebook and Google+. I visit the former far more frequently than the latter: partly because notifications are built in to a number of other Google products; mostly because the people I’m connected to on Google+ tend to share articles rather than thoughts. It’s only today that I thought to compare the two networks’ profile pages, though.

Google launched its current layout just this month, with many improvements to its UI and a profile layout which bears much more of a resemblance to Facebook’s Timeline. I commend both ‘sites for introducing a banner space, which really helps to personalise a profile where custom themes are never allowed. I’ve also publicly decried Facebook’s approach to Timeline, which forced me to delete my account and start a new one, for personal reasons. Despite the fact I still have to tidy my re-booted Timeline every other night, I am generally a fan, though. I only tidy as I prefer to keep timely stories on there, since I believe that Facebook’s layout does not lend itself well to my occasional, rambling thoughts and linked media.

Of the two social networks, I do find that I prefer Google+’s approach, and I’m now beginning to look upon Timeline as a missed opportunity. Certainly neither is a perfect service, but I begin to wonder why Facebook devotes so much on-screen space to the cover image (the horizontal banner), when very few people seem to have photographs worthy of putting in here. I have had to rely upon a raygun gothic-themed image, choosing to carry my business card branding through, because unlike a couple of my friends and most of the celebrities I follow, I do not have any professional portraits. Compare this with Google+, and it’s clear that the user’s square-format portrait takes precedent. It is as though Facebook expects each user to treat their Timeline as a page rather than a profile, and I wonder now if that was a good move.

My criticisms achieve very little, of course – I use these services at no financial cost, and my fellow users learn to work around anything which they too might consider to be a shortfall. With that having been said, I’m somehow confident that Google+ represents me better, particularly for not displaying my connections so prominently. Google profiles do include a small panel, just below the user’s portrait, which will show any mutual connections you (as the viewer) may have, but that is something I consider very relevant and reassuring to social networking. The fact I have gone to the effort of manually tagging 243 photos with locations (because Facebook still stubbornly refuses to read meta-data, even for dates) is considerably less relevant, to my eyes. I also mourn the photo bar of yore, in which Facebook would allow you to hide those photos in which you were tagged in, but might not want shown on your profile. Now, if I want to be tagged in photos of a fun night out, I have no choice but to allow them on to the top of the pile, under that ‘photos’ thumbnail. Google+ seem to have responded to this, and it offers an alternative to the horizontal ‘cover art’ bar, which comprises a series of photos of your choice, as below:

At the end of the day, it seems to me that Google+ has found a worthy niche, breaking away from Facebook by actually sticking to what its elder competitor used to do. Where Facebook channels its users into making profiles which look like corporate pages, Google+ have offered a design which puts the user themselves further forward, also giving them a little more control over how they appear. It may lack the vibrant activity which Facebook still enjoys, and I experience this in the fact I’ve never physically met any of the people who appear in my stream, but in many ways I feel it is now a more appropriate home for me as a person.

If only some social networking APIs - and more importantly, other people – would actually use the thing…

Incidentally, you’re welcome to follow me on Facebook and Google+, though the latter is a bit light on anything but posts from Google Reader.

Pinterest: For All to See?

April 4, 2012 in Reviews

Pinterest has had something of a buzz about it in these past few months, and although I’m now late to the party, I’ve finally been granted access to create an account of my own.

I first encountered Pinterest after hearing word of it and duly proceeding to pinterest.com. What I was saw seemed a little too busy for my eyes, but the concept was clear: post ‘stuff’ onto a web-based board of your own devising, sorted into a variety of categories. It seemed to be something between the ‘likes’ section of a Facebook profile and a tumblelog, of which I have many.

Now that I’ve been allowed in to try Pinterest, I find it has much more in common with Tumblr than I had first thought – right down to the reblogging and the dashboard stream, albeit one which is presented differently. The only major difference I can find is that Pinterest does not allow pseudonymity between blogs. I now feel quite strongly that this is something of an understated feature in Tumblr.

On Pinterest, every one of a user’s boards is available to view under their profile. Tumblr allows users to post to their individual blogs, or to view the comments and activity for each, but does not have this style of profile. This means that unless a user explicitly links to their other blogs in the description or layout, no-one may know there is any sort of link between them. This is because Tumblr portrays each blog as a username, so if you follow my Maps in Games project through your own Tumblr dashboard, you will only ever see posts attributed to either “maps-in-games” or the user who submitted a post – never “sinnyo”, “ludometer” or “raypunk”, which are the usernames for some of my other “tumblelogs”.

There are pros and cons to doing this:

  • Pinterest quickly becomes a simpler way to share all your interests, making it much more social, while Tumblr stands as more of a curating service, with isolated blogs on a particular theme.
  • Pinterest becomes yet another service in which we find we may have to self-censor, while Tumblr maintains an easy anonymity, allowing people to create dedicated channels if they feel they need to.

One of the joys I find in Tumblr is the sheer diversity of its content, and this includes content of an erotic nature, which can be deeply moving, artistic and inspirational. I make no real secret of my ‘main’ tumblelog, which does include ‘NSFW’ work, but nor do I want to expose people to it in inappropriate settings. It’s a tough call for a service whose ‘mission’ is to have its users express what inspires them.

Like I’ve said, there is a clear ‘pro’ – Pinterest is evidently a fun tool for people making wishlists, sharing fanart and fashion tips, or who feel confident (or free) enough to abandon privacy concerns about the content they post. I was simply fascinated by this little-publicised feature (or lack of one) in Tumblr, which actually leaves me feeling freer to express myself.