Escalating Office-isms

Here’s a game I came up with last night (with the help of my lovely wife) for subverting the office water cooler into something more interesting.

Escalating Office-isms: A game for the modern office environment.

Two or more people are required to play Escalating Office-isms. Players should be loitering by a water cooler, next to the copier, or some other suitable location for office small-talk. Waiting in an elevator has the added bonus of giving you a captive audience for your game performance, but the drawback of an artificial time limit (although advanced players will bypass this by simply riding the elevator up and down repeatedly).

The game begins by one player making a casual statement about somebody else in the office, or a fictional character spontaneously written into your office context. The statement must contain at least one name, and at least one “office-ism”, ie. an office buzzword. Buzzword examples are listed later, but the best ones are often those which stand out from your own office experiences.

The next player must make a follow-up statement which includes at least as many office buzzwords as the previous statement played. It must also refer to someone within the office, fictional or otherwise. Fictional names are preferable as it adds a level of misdirection for anyone listening, as well as allowing for more flexibility in play.

Most importantly, the name included in the response must begin with the last letter of the name last spoken in the previous statement. A statement may mention more than one name, but the first proper name used must follow this criteria. Only first names should be used during the game to keep this rule’s difficulty reasonable. If a name has more than one viable spelling, any plausible spelling is allowed to structure the response.

The game progresses with each player in turn responding to the previous statement played as above. In the case of more than two players, players can respond in any order, or spontaneously agree on a clockwise or counterclockwise play order. Players must use non-verbal cues to come to this agreement if they do so at all; the intention being that, while all players are aware of the game’s rules, game play begins spontaneously in the correct context and without any additional clues to others who may be nearby to alert them that a game is being played.

During game play, all players should maintain a straight-faced, casual but serious tone.

Play ends when players finally give in and go back to work (considered a loss), or when one player keeps a straight face while making a statement that causes other players to crack up laughing (considered a win). Bonus points for all involved if a random passer-by is drawn into the conversation; extra bonus points if the random passer-by is the one who cracks up laughing while all players remain straight-faced. Super intense bonus points if the random passer-by unknowingly responds with a well-formed statement.

An example of a few rounds of play, with office buzzwords in bold:

Player 1: “Were you at this morning’s meeting? I thought John’s action items were highly questionable.”

Player 2: “That is so true! I was just telling Nigel the other day that we need to stay focused on our mission statement.”

Player 1: “We could all learn from Linda’s example. Her action items are so dynamic!”

Player 2: “She needs to work together with Arthur on the project; we need to bring our resources together to maximize our synergy.”

Note that acceptable buzzwords will vary and are subjective. If a player responds in a way which implies a miscount the previous player may repeat his statement, adding emphasis on the words or phrases he considers valid. eg. “I think you misheard me – her action items are very dynamic!” If the responding player still does not seem to agree on the buzzword count, the earlier player should concede to the responding player to allow play to continue as smoothly as possible.

This was inspired by Rules of Play‘s suggested exercise of creating a Site-Specific Resistance game design. If you have fun playing Escalating Office-isms, or have any questions about the rules, I would love to hear from you!

Portal’s Feminism

Portal is simply fantastic. The game play is incredibly well-polished; the puzzles are fantastic; the portal gun is tons of fun; the style and writing are hilarious. You really should go finish the game just for the credits alone (no, I’m not kidding, although don’t go digging up spoiler videos because you really need to play the game through to get the full comedy impact). So now that the context has been properly set, I want to dig into something I’m not entirely certain about.

What the heck is Portal saying about gender and femininity?

Spoilers after the break – if you haven’t played and finished the game yet, go do so! Then come back. Continue reading

References for my TWU “Digital Games as Communication” Presentation

This post is a collection of links to stuff that I mentioned during my visit at Kevin Schut’s class on Digital Games as Communication. The talk was, roughly, on creative process in the mainstream game industry vs that in independent development, plus a look at what the indie game scene is shaping into today (or at least the parts I’ve found out about so far).  If there’s anything I mentioned that you can’t find here or via Google, or if you have any other questions, drop a comment here or email me at: josh at the domain thoughtlost dot org.  (Does that even fool spambots anymore? I have no idea.)

Linkfest begins after the break.

Continue reading

NYT on Halo 3 in Christian Youth Evangelism

What a weird article.

Not once does anyone in the article ask the obvious question – “Why Halo?” If the violence of the game is a concern, why don’t they simply play something else? A church I used to attend had video games in their youth drop-in area, but they deliberately avoided M-rated titles. People still had lots of fun. This was in Canada, so the usual choice was a hockey game, but surely a football game would have the same effect south of the border. But I guess too many of us evangelicals have bought into the idea that we need to ride the hype bandwagons to be “relevant” to kids, instead of teaching them to step back and think critically. Bleah.

The repeated use of “Thou shalt not kill” was also just weird. Talk about what morals the game is passing on, or whether we should be exposing kids to more media violence. Don’t try to clumsily equate killing sci-fi aliens in a game with a literal act of murder. I guess it’s true that the game may be passing on morals and values which encourage violent response, but I don’t see that as a given. Are you even killing humans in Halo 3? I guess in deathmatch mode probably; I haven’t played a Halo game yet, I’ve been too distracted defending the intelligence. (No, TF2 probably shouldn’t be used in youth outreach programs either.)

I’m still a little muddled when it comes to how I want to respond to an article like this. Part of me wants to ask if this would be just as controversial if the youth group was being taken out for a game of laser tag* or paintball**, which are arguably more realistic experiences of gunfighting (especially paintball). I’ve taken in enough gamer culture over the years that it’s hard for me to drop the defensiveness that rises up when it feels like video games are being scapegoated.

But I do believe there are reasons why we should be concerned by what messages and values violent games are bringing to kids. I just don’t think that the outside-perspective analysis given by sources like this NYT article capture the depth of the issues.

For a better example of what I’d like to see more of, in Hartmut Gieselmann’s recent paper, “Ordinary Gamers – The Vanishing Violence in War Games and Its Influence on Male Gamers”:

But when you take a closer look at war games, you will realize that the violent scenes that are shown there are not nearly as gruesome as in fictional games featuring monsters and vampires.

…violence will only be recognized as entertaining for the gamer… when he (much more than 90 Percent of war gamers are male) can draw a strict line between the real world and the non real gaming world – otherwise he would be scared by what he sees and stop feeling comfortable.

…By just pointing at the most violent games, critics overlook that war games have a much greater impact on gamers’ opinions and their world views because they do not show the actual violence.

Which is more dangerous in the hands of our children – fantasy-setting violence which jars the senses, or toned down violence depicted in real-world settings which numbs us to the ugly reality of real warfare? (Answering “both” is fine; it’d be an improvement over most critics and watchdog groups who fixate only on the most bloody games.)

I clearly can’t end this in a way which wraps up my thoughts into a coherent conclusion, because I don’t yet have one. How about I just end off by saying, anyone who buys Halo 3 for a youth group and hands it uncritically to 12-year-olds that I know and care about will probably get a scowl and a talking-to from me. Grrr!

(re: GTxA)
*which is awesome, by the way.

**which, when I played for the first time about four months ago, hurt like heck and left a still-visible mark on my body. Also the masks fog up in the first 30 seconds which is lame. My ideal solution: outdoor laser tag.