What Travolta movie can I draw the best, and what one would Ben be most likely to get? I went with Pulp Fiction — and he got it. Although I’m a bit concerned Samuel L. Jackson looks a little more like Richard Ayoade from The IT Crowd…

1. It gets you thinking about your users — i.e., your drawings are based on what you know about your co-player. Drawing Skyrim would be great fun for my partner — I could draw scenes from the game I know she would recognize. However it wouldn’t work for other friends who don’t play games. But that’s the beauty of Draw Something — you have three usually diverse drawing subjects to choose from. Even drawing something as simple as ‘Russia’ or a band would depend on who you’re drawing it for.
2. Watching someone guess your drawing is not so different from watching user testing. As they fumble around with letters (or do nothing with letters, showing they’re absolutely stumped) you get great feedback on your artistic rendition of a particular subject. It really hones your design and interpretation skills.
3. It encourages humour. Watching stroke by stroke a drawing come together let’s you have a lot of fun with drawings. I have a handful of friends who take painstaking detail in creating over-the-top scenes of simple words. But you don’t have to spend 15 minutes creating a drawing: in five seconds you can do just a good job and humorous takes on words really add to the fun.

I think the last point is perhaps the most important here. The fun of interaction can so often be overlooked in favour of dry and rigid interactions that must be proven to be 100% effective. And this is why Draw Something is so fantastic: as it encourages interaction through play — and fun.

PS: Fancy a game? My username is joffley!

Apart from this being inconvenient, it struck me that being able to take screenshots — and more importantly sharing them — really adds a lot to the experience of a device.

Damn You Autocorrect! is a perfect example of this: people collecting examples of the iPhone’s quirky autocorrect and sharing them.

On Facebook many of my friends share screenshots. I often do as well when I see something worth sharing. For instance, last week I saw this bizarre image on the Malaysian Airways website and put it up on Facebook:

Oh, men! Yes we’re so trying, but you women still love us!

Had I not been on my desktop, I would not have been able to share this given the capabilities of my Android phone.

But many friends with iPhones do post screenshots from their phones.

One friend, @bendog, was recently listening to ‘Common People’ by Pulp. He wanted to make a comment on Facebook about the song, so he took a screenshot on his iPhone and uploaded it to Facebook:

Another friend, @Louiseontwitr, was looking for a Google Shopping app. But a funny thing happened: iTunes took her straightforward and innocent search and suggested something fairly inappropriate. So she took a screenshot on her iPhone and uploaded it to Facebook:


And I’ve seen plenty of weather-related screenshots from friends in London with iPhones (this one in particular from @indeox):

On iOS, screenshots are a piece of cake.

Apparently newer versions of Android make taking screenshots possible: but for other users of older Android devices the only way to take a screenshot is by rooting the phone or following this ridiculous process.

iPads too can take screenshots — but how about Android tablets? It’s not much better. And how about the iPad’s latest competitor, Amazon’s Kindle Fire? Well you can just follow these 21 simple steps. Yes, TWENTY ONE. On iOS? Hold the power button and sleep buttons. Done.

Android users could snigger at iPhone users for a while when they didn’t have copy and paste: but to me the screenshot ability is just as essential to any piece of hardware.

Just like a camera captures your experience in the real world, a screenshot does the same for any digital experience.

This problem is just as bad on game consoles. I’ve long played games on PCs, but have only just recently switched to the Playstation 3. One huge thing I miss is the ability to take screenshots.

For me, killing two people in Battlefield 2 at once was worth a screenshot, even if I died seconds afterwards

Steam understands how important screenshots are to sharing experiences. So much so they give all users 1GB of free cloud storage purely for storage and sharing of screenshots. (And beyond just screenshots, video capture for gaming is another great way to share game experiences).

Newer Android phones such as the Galaxy S2 can take screenshots: hopefully all new Android models will soon follow suit. But there are so many other phones and consoles that just lack this functionality: Windows 7 mobiles, Blackberries, Sony PSP and PS3, Xbox 360, Nintendo 3DS and Wii. On some its possible, but not without connecting it to a PC in some way.

App and games publishers should be livid at these platforms not having this feature. Sharing screenshots is sharing your experience of a piece of hardware and/or software. It’s a critical feature that Apple nailed long ago.

Furthermore, it’s brand exposure: everyone knows the unique chrome of the iOS because iPhone users so often share screenshots from their phone. Android, Blackberry, webOS, Windows Mobile… sure you’ve seen these phones, but you’ve never seen screenshots shared around. However your knowledge of the aesthetics of iOS is no doubt far greater than any other one of these in part of the simple fact you can share screenshots from Apple devices.

My next phone — Apple, HTC, Samsung or other — will definitely have to have this feature. But until then, at least I can rely on my old trusty iPod.

Since this launch, I’ve noticed that Google is keen to hear my feedback on the new design.

Really keen.

At first I just hit the close button. The second, third and possibly fourth time I did the same. Possibly the fifth time it appeared, I actually gave them feedback, telling them not to worry — the new design was fine, but please stop pestering me with the pop up.

Yet it kept coming back. It’s like a zombie: it won’t die unless you shoot it in the head. But the problem is, I don’t know where the head is.

Last Sunday, I knew I was going to be on my computer most the day doing work. First thing that greeted me when I checked my email? Of course, the pop up. So between now and then I’ve been taking screenshots every time it’s appeared. Between now and then, I’ve restarted Chrome and my computer several times, logged in and out of Google, submitted more feedback begging for them to stop bugging me and even took the damn tour of their new Gmail in a vain effort to get this black box out of my inbox. And it’s the same situation on my work computer: at least a few times a day, my little black box friend will rear its ugly little head.

I’ve feedback to Google twice about this, and heck I’ve even tried tweeting Gmail. What can possibly stop this menace?

Now, this is where I’m interested to see whether this is just a personal overreaction to a tiny detail. I’m a bit obsessive about details. I have zero unread emails in my inbox, and it sends a cold shiver down my spine when I see people with even a few unread emails not attended too. Perhaps this pop up is annoying me because it’s interfering with my carefully groomed email environment?

Or maybe it’s more that when a user sees an ‘x’ icon on anything, it’s an expectation that once you have clicked on that ‘x’, whatever dialogue is attached will disappear, forever, unless the user takes action that justifies its return.

And I haven’t done anything to justify its return. Why are Google doing this? Is the code to keep it hidden broken, or is a strategy to painfully wring as much feedback out as possible?

And is this annoying anyone else as much as me?

Update, 17th November 2011: Well, seems I’m not the only one who’s been bugged by this: http://www.google.co.uk/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=google+new+look+feedback+popup

But, that said, I haven’t seen the pop up for a few days. Hooray!

The Hen Party zombies: everyone’s favourites!

If touched by a zombie, you must stop and be ‘marked’ with a pen as infected. I survived most of the game, but succumbed during the finale of the evening. My reward: getting made up in full zombie gore after finding the final checkpoint.

I don’t want to give too much away about how the game works, but I have possibly never been so terrified in my life. When I say running from zombies, this isn’t just the odd sprint: your heart is in your mouth and your lungs are burning. I’m a bit of a zombie purist and prefer the Romero-style shuffling as opposed to the ones that run, but for sheer terror you can’t beat zombies that can keep right up with you.

The event was quite an experience. The true genius of the concept is that you are let loose with other survivors right into the public sphere: avoiding zombies is one thing, but on a Saturday night in Southwark before Halloween working out the difference between fellow survivors, the general public, the odd vagrant and of course the zombies is quite a challenge.

Throughout the night you switch between game mode and public mode: in game mode, if you see a zombie, your basal instincts kick in: you run, shove, push to get away — and probably run faster then you’ve ever run before. But minutes later you revert back to normal behaviour: like checking both ways before crossing the road.

While moments of sheer terror were very short, a very tense (yet ultimately fun) atmosphere of suspense was in the air: partially because of this duality of thinking and having to switch between different mentalities very quickly, but also because you don’t know when that change is going to take place. Every corner, wall and bush was a potential ambush location for a cunning zombie.

By far the most positive part of the game was the camaraderie between the survivors. Everyone was playing the game together, slightly terrified yet all helping each other and having a great time overall.

Next year 2.8 Hours Later is planning to run again in more cities across the UK: if you want to do something different and be absolutely terrified, definitely give it a shot.

Everyone’s talking about the new FIFA 12… but what if FIFA 12 was actually just about FIFA?

Imagine that together with some of the controversy that’s surrounded FIFA over the past twelve months…

Game review: FIFA 12 — the real FIFA!

Jack Warner, Sepp Blatter and Mohamed bin Hammam feature on the cover: but will they be friends by the end of the game?

Introduction: a brand new way of playing

I’ve only been playing FIFA 12 for a few hours, but it’s already really obvious the new format is a bold move: ditching all footballing gameplay in order to make the game a simulation about what actually happens at FIFA headquarters. Over the past year there’s been a presidential election and the awarding of two World Cups, so there’s been plenty going on to help shape the game’s new direction.

Let’s look at the new game modes one by one.
The graphics may have suffered slightly, but the diverse range of gameplay certainly makes up for it!

FIFA World Cup Bid

Every football fan’s dream is to have the FIFA World Cup happen in their own home country. In FIFA 12, you can help build your country’s bid for either the 2018 or 2022 World Cup.

Let’s try and get England the 2018 World Cup. It’s an impressive bid team! Surely a great chance?

Lobbying to get your country the World Cup sees you jet-setting around the world meeting with different representatives from world football, trying to convince them your country will put on the best World Cup possible. But is it as simple as that?

Oh dear, it seems Jack Warner wants a bit more for his vote.

You’re not going to win the Brazilian vote that easily! Ricardo Teixeira is quite the tough cookie.

Russia wins! But you were promised more votes than that! Perhaps you didn’t give enough gifts out…

FIFA Presidency

I think every football fan has dreamt about being FIFA President. What crazy initiatives could you bring in? Goal line technology? The world would be your oyster!

Who will you run as? Grant Wahl is the underdog, Sepp Blatter the incumbant… maybe Mohamed bin Hammam will have a good chance?

You’ve got to watch your back — Chuck Blazer has reported you to the FIFA Ethics committee!

Hmmm, who will you vote for?

While the campaign for presidency is quite fun, the major let down is the actual voting: I’ve played the game a few times and it always ends up only being Sepp Blatter up for election!

Vote “negotiation”

This game mode isn’t as long as the others, and is a bit disappointing: it seems you just try and fleece as much money out of potential World Cup bidders as possible. Perhaps a Sims-like interface where you can build your own mansion with all your money would make it a bit more interesting?

Conclusion

Would the bold new format of FIFA 12 work? Probably not… I give it 1/5.

Back to reality

While the real FIFA 12 is no doubt a great game, it concerns me that so many people are playing a game that bears the same name as an organisation shrouded in controversy and murky politics that’s desperately in need of reform.

Sepp Blatter has promised that reform: but as someone elected as a sole candidate, how much can we really expect?

I really hope that by the time FIFA 13 is released, FIFA has cleaned up its act. But think about the inevitable future game franchises for Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022: they will be sad reminders of the current FIFA’s legacy — not to mention the actual tournaments themselves.

But obviously, upon seeing Troll 2, one might ask: ‘what about the original Troll? Do I need to see that?’ Given how awful the film is, even if the films were connected, I would still doubt you would need to see the first. But look at more successful sequels: The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers, Empire Strikes Back, Aliens, Godfather 2. You probably could watch them standalone, but they are part of a larger story best enjoyed if you do watch them sequentially.

This isn’t true for gaming: you can usually jump into most games without needing to know the back story. But often I think — as with films — wouldn’t it be nice to enjoy an entire series in sequence? But this, in reality, is almost impossible.

Earlier this week I tried to find Bioshock for PS3. I bought the game for peanuts on Steam a few years ago, but never finished it and wanted to enjoy its amazing visuals on my plasma TV (and also wanted my fiancée to play it). Released in October 2008 to critical acclaim, it’s now impossible to buy this new in the UK.

You can only buy it second hand.

This strikes me as madness. Bioshock 2 was released last year to even more rave reviews, and the third in the series (Bioshock Infinite) is due for release next year. Surely this is money in the bank for publishers, distributors and retailers?

But the problem of gaming sequels becomes more apparent when you consider those lineages that span multiple platforms. Resident Evil is a great example. I missed the first Resident Evil in the 90s as I didn’t have a PlayStation. However I was lucky enough to play it on Nintendo DS years later when they re-released it. Even on a tiny screen it was a terrifying experience. After finishing it I eagerly looked forward to continuing the series.

But my chances of playing Resident Evil 1-3 in the late 2000s are virtually nil unless I buy an original PlayStation or download a PC version and go through the stress of trying to get Windows 9x/XP games running on Windows 7.

It’s the same story for Fallout 3: I’ve no chance of playing the first two. For a while PS3s were backward compatible with PS2 games, but if I wanted to play Grand Theft Auto: Vice City again (one of my favourite ever games), I have to hook up my old PS2. (OK, I could play it on PC, but it’s just not as fun).

I think there are two wider issues here: firstly, of all media genres, currently gaming is by far the most susceptible medium to technological obsolescence. Secondly, this borrowed format of putting sequel numbers after game titles is utterly pointless and a bad marketing ploy.

The issue of games and technology is a really tricky one to address. Thankfully many emulators are out there, so many early Nintendo games (like Mario) are easily playable, but there are still so many titles that are really difficult to play again. I’d be really curious how game design courses address this: obviously when you study film you watch and analyse many classic films. How would that work with a gaming course?

My second point, however, is really the main point of this post. I bought Deus Ex: Human Revolution
this week, and am very excited about playing it. I played the first Deus Ex back in 2000 and found it incredible — it brought many new and innovative concepts into gaming. For me, part of the attraction to the game was the continuing of that lineage which I was familiar with. But I would guess that many people who have bought the game have little or no idea there are games before it.

However, I don’t think that’s a problem, because it’s not called Deus Ex 3. The game takes place in the same realm and canon as the first, but isn’t necessarily the third part. But look at the controversy surrounding Left 4 Dead 2. Faithful players of the first Left 4 Dead were worried that they were being abandoned in favour of a sequel. I can’t help but think if it was entitled Left 4 Dead: New Orleans or something like that, it would’ve avoided much of the backlash from users.

Left 4 Dead 2 is again another example of a game that is another story from a gaming canon, but it’s not actually a sequel.

I think the gaming industry needs to drop these pointless suffixes from titles. Sure, keep the brand alive, but stop suggesting these titles are part of a linked series (unless, of course, they are).

But how can we keep alive all the games in a series — stand alone or actual sequels — alive and playable?

That’s a much tougher question.

Ben’s talk involved multiple kitten references, so thought I’d add one in too.

Aimed mostly at UX designers (although the title of the talk also stipulated ‘everyone else’), I wasn’t sure how much this would talk about game theory as opposed to general ‘gamification’, which has become one of the biggest buzzwords of 2011. Hearing other people at the talk chatting before the presentation, I got the impression I wasn’t alone in that concern.

But full credit to Ben, he gave an outstanding introduction to basic game theory. One of the more interesting parts of his presentation was how essentially all game systems are a scam: they make you think you understand the system, only to keep deluding you with that very feeling in order to perpetuate the actual game play.

After the talk, one of the first questions was about Foursquare, and how to create a gamification system as popular as that.

I’ve known about Foursquare for a few years, and while I love the idea, I’ve always resisted getting into it.

Why?

After Ben’s talk it occurred to me that from the outset of hearing about Four Square, as a long time gamer, I quickly understand all the mechanics. And that’s the reason it didn’t really appeal to me: I don’t want to get obsessed with being the mayor of my local pub because the challenge doesn’t really interest me. I know there’s more to the game than that and I understand the general appeal, but for me, I just didn’t feel it (and didn’t want to get sucked into it).

But I’ve felt the same feeling in my subconscious when thinking about playing games before: specifically, Call of Duty online. I enjoy Call of Duty single player as the visuals are amazing, even if the game play itself is a bit repetitive (and unchallenging). But I’ve never felt the compulsion to go online: I know that there are much better players out there and I’ll spend hour upon hour being cannon fodder to people who have been playing it for years. There is that incredible rush in multiplayer games when you frag a far better player than you, but for all those rushes there are innumerable humblings. It seems almost akin to gambling addiction; the big win is what keeps many addicts going through all the predictable losses. But that’s not surprising: whether it’s poker or Call of Duty, your engaged in a gaming system.

If Call of Duty and poker are of the same type of game, then perhaps coop shooters like Left 4 Dead are more like board games: a game with far less rushes but a much stronger sense of social enjoyment. Then perhaps games like LA Noire and Fallout 3/Fallout: New Vegas are like a puzzle of a game of solitaire: something you can enjoy at your own pace that rewards perseverance and commitment.

I wonder if this bunker has a mayor yet? Maybe I’ll check in with my Pipboy…

And it might just be me, but I’d prefer exploring the incredible 1940s Los Angeles in LA Noire than trying to oust someone at my local pub just to try and get a free pint. But I’m sure sooner or later there’s an app that will tie in geolocation and check-ins that will appeal to that inner explorer inside of me. Maybe it’s about time I downloaded Gowalla?

The idea is good in theory; you rotate a selector around all your weapon types in a neat revolver-style menu. Except the selector moves very slowly; it takes a lot of effort and care to move the selector from weapon to weapon. Doing something as simple as changing a weapon shouldn’t require this much effort or dexterity.

After being blown apart (and occasionally mauled to death) trying to change weapons this way, I quickly opted for the far more conservative but far safer method of Start > Weapons.

In the heat of the battle, I’d rather use the left and right D-pad to cycle through weapons individually: just like in all the  Grand Theft Auto franchises. (In fact I wish Rockstar had kept the controls as close as possible to GTA; I was also surprised that riding a horse used quite different buttons to those used for driving cars in GTA).

This certainly doesn’t ruin the brilliance of the game, but for me this really stood out as a bit below par, especially given how brilliant the rest of the game is.

And considering there are more Portuguese speakers in Brazil than Portugal, why not show the Brazil flag for Portuguese (if you’re being consistent with the use of the US flag).

Or… just don’t use flags to illustrate language. Ever.

The second is that like many a good action film, it’s quite dumb. Many levels require you slaughtering respawning enemies over and over again while you wait for a helicopter or a timer to countdown. This gets really painful and chore-like after you fail two or three times. If only there was a little more strategy to the levels: working out how to solve a difficult level is rewarding when there’s some strategy involved. When it’s a bit of luck after the upteemth attempt, it’s just anticlimactic.