Game on!

For the session It’s Not Just A Game: Storytelling In The Virtual Space, Denise Dilannim, Founding Director of WGBH Lab and Executive in Charge at Boston Media Productions moderated a panel composed of Trisha Creekmore (Discovery.com), Nonny De La Pena (Producer and Director of Gitmo Gone–Virtual Guantanamo), Ken Ellis (Executive Producer, Edutopia, The George Lucas Educational Foundation), Wendy Levy (Director of Creative Programming, Bay Area Video Coalition), Suzanne Seggerman (President and Co-founder, Games for Change), Sharon Sloane (WILL Interactive, Inc.) and, serving as respondent, David Johnson (Assistant Professor, School of Communication, American University and co-Editor-in-Chief, The American Spectator).

The panel looked primarily at “serious games”–computer games that are designed to promote political, social or behavioral change, or to serve a function that goes beyond play alone.

Suzanne Seggerman opened the session, and introduced her organization, which promotes the use of games for social issues and social change. She pointed out that games are a young medium. They are still evolving and growing–maturing as a form. Gaming, said Seggerman, is where film was in the 60s and 70s: beginning to be studied in the academy, shown in museums, getting foundation interest.

Seggerman made the interesting point that unlike films, you have agency in games. So how you tell a story in a game has to account for that difference.

While Sharon Sloane previewed her company’s technology–the Virtual Experience Immersive Learning Simulations–which seem to be like old-style games: a set of decision tree scenarios, with video segments. While there is likely more to it than that, you couldn’t tell from the demo.

Wendy Levy talked about BAVC’s ability to bring together mediamakers, technologists, and storytellers for developing new tools and approaches–and to serve as an incubator for innovation with independent producers. She then showed a brief machinima, generated in Second Life. It seemed like it was the first exposure to machinima for several members of the audience, and she. seemed surprised by the machinima Then showed a brief machima–oops technical problems–ok, then did the piece. The piece was nice–all second life

Ken Ellis stepped in to briefly introduce Edutopia–which has a site, a magazine, and a research agenda. He showed a brief sample work. They have over 150 docs available on their site.

In my opinion, Nonny De La Pena’s project was both the most innovative and interesting. She created an interactive Gitmo experience in Second Life, where visitors get bound, hooded, transported, caged, etc. It seemed like a brilliant way to inform and change people’s perspective on what is going on inside Camp X-Ray.

Then Trisha Creekmore demonstrated one of Discovery.com’s projects–the game Shark Runners, built by AreaCode– which is a social game where you do shark research and gather info, get funding, etc. Creekmore noted that the challenge to her was how to make an interesting game that is fun, will keep people coming back and also help them learn something.

In the Q&A that followed, a number of interesting ideas arose:

Sloane observed that games must bring a perspective shift to bring change. The game must be personal enough to open people up, to lower their defenses while providing better tools, information, and behaviors. To be successful, you “must capture brain space and heart space at the same time.”

De La Pena spoke about the idea of “spatial narrative”: when you move into a virtual space, how do you get people to follow you? How do you build that narrative? Do we show you video? Take control of the avatar? How do you marry image and story?

Creekmore reminded us of the iron rule of gamers: the users totally hack what the designers plan. With her Sharkrunners game, players created their own HQ, gave their own awards, etc. She emphasized that this is something to be expected and embraced (Her best quote? “I like the unpredictable.”)

Respondent David Johnson set out an interesting framework for thinking about gaming. He said there are four considerations: the culture of play, the money of play, the storytelling of play, and the ethics of play.

Johnson said if you take a tool and play with it, you get a toy. So, that also works in reverse–we learn from play. Start as play, then toys may become tools (or, if playing with tools, new uses arise).

The money of play is a really big force–the push for faster, more powerful tech raises the bar for entry into making games.

Yet, Johnson noted, it is still about telling a story. The new tech engages people at a whole new level–simulation as the most powerful communication tool ever. (All games, he argued, are storytelling platforms. Chess itself is a teaching tool to teach war.)

And then, finally, gamemakers need to consider the ethics of what you create. Once you select some aspect, you are leaving something out–every choice limits, and so, in a sense, every choice speaks of intent.

Johnson’s closing point really seemed to reiterate what many of the panelists have already grasped. It is time for storytellers to embrace the gaming platform and its power to make visual worlds, use it to craft stories, and then to let people play with it.