What’s your take?

I have a puzzling result of my study. Do you have a suggestion for an interpretation?

I am testing the effectiveness of a “rational agent” model in explaining player behaviour. In other words, do players actually adopt the game goals as their own?

It turns out that

– YES: In terms of the gamespace (i.e. on-screen) they do. While playing the three games in my study, players conformed to what you would expect if they were simply trying to win.

but

– NO: In terms of their verbal interaction and behaviour outside the gamespace (i.e. in the couch) they do not. The players gave help and advice in ways that did not obviously improve their own chances of winning (e.g. they helped others a lot in a competitive game).

Is this surprising? And do you have any idea why this split occurs?

Capture27-04-2006-09.53.28

Capture27-04-2006-11.24.29

Danish Social Democrats want state funding for games

artwork_hitman_02

The Danish Social Democrats suggest ambitious changes in the state’s attitude towards games.

In particular, they suggest that video games be equated with film in terms of opportunities for cultural funding. The party’s cultural spokesperson notes how “I find it completely obvious that we need more state funding in this area”.

His arguments are perhaps less than entirely compelling: “We give support to all sorts of other things when it comes to culture, and we talk a lot about how to counter US culture.”

He also proposes increased funding for games research.

These ideas have circulated in various forms for years, but this time round someone seems to really mean it. Of course, the idea of actually equating film and games would mean a funding revolution that would create considerable opposition in some circles. Also, this debate is likely to lead to a heated discussion of what types of games deserve support. Bald assassins, anyone?

Source: Computerworld (Danish)