I thought I’d heard it all. Nope. Apparently there’s a joystick that can be used to control people. Yes — people. The setup works by sending electrical signals into the volunteer’s ears. This somehow effects the volunteer’s sense of balance, and they get an uncontrolable urge to move in that direction to keep themselves balanced. This was also used on the volunteer while they watched a racing game. The effect apparently made the game more immersive and real.

James Collins, professor of biomedical engineering at Boston University, has studied using the technology to prevent the elderly from falling and to help people with an impaired sense of balance. But he also believes the effect is suited for games and other entertainment.

“I suspect they’ll probably get a kick out of the illusions that can be created to give them a more total immersion experience as part of virtual reality,'’ Collins said.

You can read the whole article here. (Use bugmenot.com to avoid the registration.)

I was recently asked why I’m not fond of GarageGames. Here is my reply:

My limited experience with GarageGames has left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

They “prey” on new game developers by locking them in to proprietary development with sub par tools. Since they provide a path from initial experimentation to publishing, with development conferences on the way, they incubate developers in a vacuum: Developers are frequently unaware of development and publishing alternatives. Of course, it’s their prerogative as a business to maximize their profits. But, this wouldn’t be a problem if they cared about the community above viewing them as cattle.

Their reliance on the community to provide support to itself is unhealthy, especially considering their widely known documentation problems. (Yes, I’m aware of the documentation project — it should have been done years ago.) They offer just enough support to sustain their community at a level that is self-sufficient. And then they try to capitalize on the successful developers by publishing their games, often when the developer isn’t aware of alternatives.

I’d like to point to a recent blog post by GarageGames’ Jeff Tunnell:

In the six years since we started GarageGames, we have found that simply sitting back and waiting for games to be made is not bringing them in fast enough or good enough for us to keep up with the market needs. Six years ago, I would have guessed that we would be looking at hundreds of games by now, but that has turned out not to be the case. Actually, in the course of a year, we do get several hundred submissions, but most of those are not worth looking at. In order for the GarageGames to be significant as a publisher, we need to be turning out at least 10 great games per year.

[Emphasis is mine.]

He’s realized that their lack of support for the community isn’t fostering enough publishing deals with GarageGames; they need more. At least they’ve identified the need for more support. Are they’re on their way to mending the mess that is the GarageGames community? Perhaps. Only time will tell.

Disclaimer: This is based off my very limited experience with GarageGames, and is primarily a thought borne from hearsay and personal exploration in the company and its practices. I could be off by a mile.

If you like GarageGames president, Mark Frohnmayer, you’ll probably be interested in an interview with him from GameDaily:

GarageGames role [in the indie games movement] will be to facilitate this movement with great technology, a community of active helpful developers and an ever-increasing array of channels for distribution. We’ll also be making some fun games ourselves!

I’m not terribly fond of the company, and by proxy, Frohnmayer, but if you’d like to keep up with the latest shameless self-promotion from one of the leading independent game publishers, it’s worth a read.

According to a survey by Eyeblaster and WildTangent, 78% of gamers said they were willing to watch short video advertisements in exchange for free gameplay; 90% of young adult males said they would.

Gal Trifon, Eyeblaster’s president and CEO said, “The scope of this survey leaves little doubt about the conclusion that video ads are the perfect match for advertisers who want to target the gaming audience.

This obviously has serious implications for on-line and casual gaming. Imagine offering a subscription service to gamers with a fallback to video-advertising revenue. Could this be the gaming business model of the future?

Yes. You read that right. I’m reversing my stance. Well, to a point, anyway. Neither gameplay nor presentation can stand alone — they are co-dependent.

I’m switching gears for a bit to do an experiment. I’ve put my current project on hold for the time being while I whip up a little game chock-full of style designed to blow the mind of my target audience, but with a less-than-innovative style of play (still fun, however.) I should be completing this experiment within the next few weeks, after which time I will submit it to some of the major casual portals. If the game is accepted, I won’t be able to report on its success by numbers, but I’ll give a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down as it progresses.

The experiment is as of yet untitled, but I’ll announce more details as production continues.

Tetsuya Mizuguchi — head of independent studio, Q Entertainment, and creator of gaming hits such as Lumines and Meteos — was interviewed by Kikizo Games. In it, he talked about everything from leaving Sega to his vision of the industry:

The industry is huge, from mobile phone games, to next gen games, to online-only games. We can’t keep them on the same page. They’re all games, but different kind of games. It’s a big dilemma, but the Nintendo message [of keeping games simple] is pretty good. Casual gamers also play games, but we should make many styles of games, and not just one.

Duke Ferris, founder of Game Revolution, doesn’t think video games are the cause of violence in the youth of America. In fact, he thinks the media is flat-out lying to us.

Thanks to the current media frenzy and barrage of lawsuits surrounding violent video games, I can’t tell people what I do for a living without getting a lecture on the current plague of youth violence and the scourge that is Grand Theft Auto…I have absolute proof that video games are not the cause of this epidemic of youth violence in America. No, really, I do.

While his facts are sound, his interpretation of them is somewhat questionable. Instead of proving that video games don’t cause violence, he simply demonstrates that violent crimes have been in a decline over the last couple decades. Assume what you will from that, but I think it’s my fancy do* that caused the decline in violent crimes. Nevertheless, check out the thought-provoking article at GameDaily.

*No. It’s not me.

Thomas Schelling and Robert Aumann have won the 2005 Nobel prize in economics for their work in game theory:

Professor Aumann’s work has centred on a different element of game theory, the question of whether co-operation increases if games are continually repeated.

He showed that co-operation is less likely when there are many participants, when interactions are infrequent, when the time horizon is short or when others’ actions cannot be clearly observed.

“I think game theory creates ideas that are important in solving and approaching conflict in general,” [Aumann] added.

Read the original article here.

Universal Studios is trying something interesting with their latest flick, Serenity — they’re showing the first 9 minutes of the film over the Internet with the hopes that you’ll get hooked. And you just may. Watch the whole “trial,” and if you’re not convinced to see the movie in the theater, or at least rent the DVD, I’ll be surprised.

It’s great to see another industry experimenting with the “try before you buy” model. Music has its radio and software has its shareware, and both have been successful for promotion. Fingers crossed that this works. And so far, it has: Serenity is number one at the box office this weekend; great way to jump-start the trend. You can view the first nine minutes of Serenity here.

In the Gamasutra article, Style and Substance in Game Design, Tynan Slyvester explores the differences between aesthetic and function in interactive systems. Not that there’s much to discuss. Except, perhaps, his definition of substance:

…substance is defined by semi-unpredictable interaction and dynamic generation of decision points…

All opinions aside, the article — apparently an excerpt from a book, though I’m not quite sure which — doesn’t provide much else than to state the patently obvious differences between style and substance. I’ll sum it up for you: Substance makes the game, style makes it real. Why he’d go on for two lengthy pages about this, I’m not sure.

He does offer, however, some good advice:

A great method to search for holes in a gameplay system is to mentally strip it of style. If you’re making a shooter, imagine your characters as cylinders and gunfire as line traces. When you can do that, examine the gameplay system, determine where it is not generating good decisions, and fix the problem. This is a good method of analysis because it leaves the gameplay naked and deprives it of any crutch that our feelings towards the style might bring.

Even though substance is more important, most games are designed style-first. The style act not just as a wrapper for the final product, but as a wrapper for the designer’s thought process. Inspiration comes not in terms of abstract game elements, but of new story elements, new real-life things to place into the simulation, for which a substance system is then built.

Nothing new to me. However, considering the largely homogenized game design that so plagues the industry today, the article may not be a bad read. If you think underwater themes are the new “it,” then I strongly suggest you read the article. Please.