Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Bullet-Time in Multiplayer Games
An interesting articles discussing how to implement the Matrix's bullet time in multiplayer games.. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7703.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Database of Virtual Art
This came in on the AGR Mailing List today:
Database of Virtual Art: http://virtualart.hu-berlin.de
We are pleased to announce the release of the extended Database ofVirtual Art. It now provides an enlarged set of features and researchopportunities: The major novelty is the freshly implemented Thesaurusfeaturing a variety of categories and keywords. The Database offers anextensive search tree that permits a targeted set search :e.g. genre: interactive art:http://virtualart.hu-berlin.de/common/searchWork.do?keywordId=164or theme: body:http://virtualart.hu-berlin.de/common/searchWork.do?keywordId=222
The Thesaurus of the Database constitutes a new approach to systemizethe field of Digital Art and the terms and concepts connected to itand will grow over the next few months. Get your own impression andtake a look at http://virtualart.hu-berlin.de. We encourage yourremarks and suggestions!
Director: Prof. Dr. Oliver Grau,Oliver.Grau@culture.hu-berlin.deWednesday, June 08, 2005
Special Edition on Digital Games!
The next issue of AJETS (Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society) will be a special issue on the theme of Digital Games. Submissions on any aspect of digital games and their social implications are welcome. We strongly encourage submissions that are pitched to a general non-technical audience. The deadline for papers for the Digital Games issue is 14 August 2005. Visit www.swin.edu.au/ajets for more.
Andrew Stapleton
Swinburne University
Andrew Stapleton
Swinburne University
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Interaction Over Internet
Mixed Reality Lab has made a new toy. It's a device that allows you to interact with an animal over the Internet. A dummy chicken on the users end mimakes the actions of a chicken, captured by webcam. The dummy has sensors in it and the real chicken wears a haptic jacket, so when you touch the dummy the chick feels it.
Okay so patting animals doesn't sound that fun, but how could this be used in games? Is this a glimpse of what it will be like to play an MMO in the future? Or what I'm thinking is: could hand-to-hand combat games come back and be the latest Internet toy?
Okay so patting animals doesn't sound that fun, but how could this be used in games? Is this a glimpse of what it will be like to play an MMO in the future? Or what I'm thinking is: could hand-to-hand combat games come back and be the latest Internet toy?
Friday, May 06, 2005
Game Developers Conference Web Cast
If you didn't get a chance to go the GDC, then this will interest you. GDCTV is providing coverage of some of the 2005 Game Developer's Conference for free. At the moment the session by Peter Molyneux (Lionhead Studios) titled Gameplay Moves Forward into the 21st Century is available.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
A screenshot from Vivendi Games/Blizzard World of Warcraft - the graphics of massively multiplayer online games have reached very high levels. The cartoon style of WoW has been met with both positive and negative comments - what do you think?
The Interactive Entertainment 2005 Conference in Sydney
Yusuf Pisan from the University of Technology Sydney, has published the details on the Interactive Entertainment Conference 2005. The website also holds the call for papers.
Go to: http://research.it.uts.edu.au/creative/ie/05/ or follow the link to the right.
Go to: http://research.it.uts.edu.au/creative/ie/05/ or follow the link to the right.
The industry and academia revisited: Andrew Stapleton comments
Let me say it's great to see industry representatives such as Zaph criticallyengaging in discussion on this blog. I'm sure we'd welcome more dialogue withindustry professionals from Melbourne House and other game dev studios aroundAustralia and New Zealand. With that said, I'd like to explore some of thepoints Zaph raises.
Kevin first mentions that "for the most part, nothing usable for the industryhas come from academics". For me the issue of utility comes from personalperspective. For example, in depth analysis on contemporary literary theory maybe of little value to a programmer specializing in particle special effects, butmay be of deep value to a designer wanting to understand modern ways ofanalysing media texts. So, taking Zaph's technical focus, I agree that for themost part, current academic research in the technical fields is well behind theresearch already being conducted by the industry. I believe that this is partlydue to the question of access. For example, the chances of a Uni getting theirhands on a SONY PS2/PS3 dev kit via SONY are extremely remote, so researchstudents are always behind the 8 ball in obtaining real world experience in thisrespect. However, I still believe that if academia and the industry can betterform links and understand not just the needs but also the limitations of theother, then we will be able to better forge relationships. And this alsorelates to the "softer" disciplines Zaph speaks of. Speaking of which, I wouldalso argue that the non-technical areas already have some great research beingpublished and readily accessible to academic researchers, and which is also ofgreat benefit to game developers. For example, the work of Randy Pagulayan etal. of Microsoft Playtest Group, and Nicole Lazzaro of XEODesign, are twoexamples of the "softer" sciences having application and documented successwithin the game industry. For me this suggests that there are many opportunitiesfor some good research to be achieved in a wide number of disciplines, and notall of it specifically related to the technical 'nuts and bolts' of production. Simply put, I understand game design and development - as a pursuit that employstechnology to create entertaining experiences for players - as both art andscience requiring synergies in a number of different areas and providing a broadscope of research possibilities to researchers. So even an inquiry entitled "Astudy of employee productivity within the Australian electronic entertainmentindustry", a title and topic that could easily be overlooked by the many withinthe industry, could have deep significance to the industry (albeit in anon-technical area). Now, if someone was do this non-technical study ofemployees of the Australian entertainment industry, and consider that the studyfound that a large majority of employees were to work long hours, under awardwages, and without being afforded appropriate benefits. Results such as thesehave the potential to influence legislation within the industry, impacting theindustry as much as the advent of a new algorithm, chip or I/O device. (And asan aside not all research will even focus on having immediate (if any)application within the industry... maybe it's this type of research Zaph wasprimarily referring to. However this doesn't simply equate to it beinguse-less. It has utility but in other areas*and it's utility may not be evidentuntil a later time).
Regarding Zaph's second point about conflict. I see no real problem withconflict, as conflict to me just means we are at the "boundary" betweendifferent areas - and at all boundaries differences exist. It is through theseunderstanding these differences that each side can gain a better appreciationabout the other and themselves. And through dialogue, each may come to uncovertheir tacit, unquestioned beliefs about the other.. in short its the conflictthat allows us to find out about ourselves and about others...(and besides itsalso a core component of games). There is conflict not only between academicand the game industry but *within* academia and also within the game industryas separate units. This conflict can reside at the level of a project andproject team. For example think of conflict - albeit simplistically - at thelevel of the studio itself. The parent distribution company want's the make themost profit - for example, shift as many units at a particular price point in asshorter time as possible. The dev studio however wants to produce the mostprofessional and highest quality product as possible. So there's conflict - thegoal of the parent company is solely to create profit (and subsequentlydistribute part of it to its shareholders) and the goal of the dev studio is toproduce the high quality, polish product. And like any design endeavour, theultimate result is a compromise. Now this doesn't mean the parent company anddev studio should necessarily go their separate ways and leave each other alone- but rather by understanding the other they can find ways of better achievingtheir cumulative goals. I believe that through dialogue reflectiveunderstanding, the game industry and academia can come to resolve issues (or atleast find out what the key differences are and find ways to overcome them). And in relation to this point, Zaph provides a very good example - that of IP(intellectual property). This is a real issue for both industry and academia,but through foresight, understanding and planning, it's my belief that we canovercome this, and the many other areas of conflict between us.
Finally, Zaph makes an excellent final point. The game industry *is* abusiness. And like any media business its very competitive, dynamic and* well,cutthroat. This is a point I always make clear to my own colleagues afterhaving worked in various facets of the media industry. Also, as Zaph mentions,and which I allude to previously, the R&D being undertaken by studios currentlyfar surpasses what academics are involved in at present. But eventually I see atime where, through mutual understanding and collaboration, we can work togetherand provide meaningful research and services to the industry.
In sum, despite these challenges, I believe that through better understandingand mutual dialogue, we can begin to better collaborate with industry. I thinkZaph, by presenting his own views, has provided some great insight into theindustry. I think now we need to take these views on board and follow ourrespective paths to new and exciting game-based research...whatever that may be!
Andrew Stapleton, Swinburne University
Kevin first mentions that "for the most part, nothing usable for the industryhas come from academics". For me the issue of utility comes from personalperspective. For example, in depth analysis on contemporary literary theory maybe of little value to a programmer specializing in particle special effects, butmay be of deep value to a designer wanting to understand modern ways ofanalysing media texts. So, taking Zaph's technical focus, I agree that for themost part, current academic research in the technical fields is well behind theresearch already being conducted by the industry. I believe that this is partlydue to the question of access. For example, the chances of a Uni getting theirhands on a SONY PS2/PS3 dev kit via SONY are extremely remote, so researchstudents are always behind the 8 ball in obtaining real world experience in thisrespect. However, I still believe that if academia and the industry can betterform links and understand not just the needs but also the limitations of theother, then we will be able to better forge relationships. And this alsorelates to the "softer" disciplines Zaph speaks of. Speaking of which, I wouldalso argue that the non-technical areas already have some great research beingpublished and readily accessible to academic researchers, and which is also ofgreat benefit to game developers. For example, the work of Randy Pagulayan etal. of Microsoft Playtest Group, and Nicole Lazzaro of XEODesign, are twoexamples of the "softer" sciences having application and documented successwithin the game industry. For me this suggests that there are many opportunitiesfor some good research to be achieved in a wide number of disciplines, and notall of it specifically related to the technical 'nuts and bolts' of production. Simply put, I understand game design and development - as a pursuit that employstechnology to create entertaining experiences for players - as both art andscience requiring synergies in a number of different areas and providing a broadscope of research possibilities to researchers. So even an inquiry entitled "Astudy of employee productivity within the Australian electronic entertainmentindustry", a title and topic that could easily be overlooked by the many withinthe industry, could have deep significance to the industry (albeit in anon-technical area). Now, if someone was do this non-technical study ofemployees of the Australian entertainment industry, and consider that the studyfound that a large majority of employees were to work long hours, under awardwages, and without being afforded appropriate benefits. Results such as thesehave the potential to influence legislation within the industry, impacting theindustry as much as the advent of a new algorithm, chip or I/O device. (And asan aside not all research will even focus on having immediate (if any)application within the industry... maybe it's this type of research Zaph wasprimarily referring to. However this doesn't simply equate to it beinguse-less. It has utility but in other areas*and it's utility may not be evidentuntil a later time).
Regarding Zaph's second point about conflict. I see no real problem withconflict, as conflict to me just means we are at the "boundary" betweendifferent areas - and at all boundaries differences exist. It is through theseunderstanding these differences that each side can gain a better appreciationabout the other and themselves. And through dialogue, each may come to uncovertheir tacit, unquestioned beliefs about the other.. in short its the conflictthat allows us to find out about ourselves and about others...(and besides itsalso a core component of games). There is conflict not only between academicand the game industry but *within* academia and also within the game industryas separate units. This conflict can reside at the level of a project andproject team. For example think of conflict - albeit simplistically - at thelevel of the studio itself. The parent distribution company want's the make themost profit - for example, shift as many units at a particular price point in asshorter time as possible. The dev studio however wants to produce the mostprofessional and highest quality product as possible. So there's conflict - thegoal of the parent company is solely to create profit (and subsequentlydistribute part of it to its shareholders) and the goal of the dev studio is toproduce the high quality, polish product. And like any design endeavour, theultimate result is a compromise. Now this doesn't mean the parent company anddev studio should necessarily go their separate ways and leave each other alone- but rather by understanding the other they can find ways of better achievingtheir cumulative goals. I believe that through dialogue reflectiveunderstanding, the game industry and academia can come to resolve issues (or atleast find out what the key differences are and find ways to overcome them). And in relation to this point, Zaph provides a very good example - that of IP(intellectual property). This is a real issue for both industry and academia,but through foresight, understanding and planning, it's my belief that we canovercome this, and the many other areas of conflict between us.
Finally, Zaph makes an excellent final point. The game industry *is* abusiness. And like any media business its very competitive, dynamic and* well,cutthroat. This is a point I always make clear to my own colleagues afterhaving worked in various facets of the media industry. Also, as Zaph mentions,and which I allude to previously, the R&D being undertaken by studios currentlyfar surpasses what academics are involved in at present. But eventually I see atime where, through mutual understanding and collaboration, we can work togetherand provide meaningful research and services to the industry.
In sum, despite these challenges, I believe that through better understandingand mutual dialogue, we can begin to better collaborate with industry. I thinkZaph, by presenting his own views, has provided some great insight into theindustry. I think now we need to take these views on board and follow ourrespective paths to new and exciting game-based research...whatever that may be!
Andrew Stapleton, Swinburne University
Up and running again!
Hello All
Due to some busy days I have not been able to update the blog for some time - this will be done now however. Watch out for news on the AGNR and the IE Conference 2005 in Sydney. Game on!
Anders Tychsen
Due to some busy days I have not been able to update the blog for some time - this will be done now however. Watch out for news on the AGNR and the IE Conference 2005 in Sydney. Game on!
Anders Tychsen
Friday, February 04, 2005
Industry vs. Academia revisited
I have recently been engaged in a brief but intense email discussion with Kevin Burfitt from Atari Melbourne House about the barrier between the games & simulation industry and the games academia. The discussion provides the perfect backdrop for kickstarting this blog.
Kevin emphasized in his emails some of the hard, economical facts of life for the industry and furthermore some of the major problems in working with academics. Of his many good points, the following are especially generic:
1) For the most part, nothing usable for the industry has come from academics (especially outside the technical fields of research), which is one of the reasons that the industry does not bother to talk to the academia. The “softer” areas of games research (sociology, psychology, humanities, language etc.) is even harder pressed to produce results of interest to an industry that deals in concrete, technical terms.
2) There is a conflict of interest between the academics, who wants to publish their work, and the games industry that is troubled by sketchy patenting laws, and need to keep research/content a secret, so that they maintain their advantage.
3) Academic need to realize that games are not games, but serious business with careers at stake. The line of development is also volatile which detracts from the wish to share information. With in-house researchers in numbers far outclassing the academia, outside research rarely makes it into the games industry.
I think most of us can agree that not all research should be engineered towards industrial uses. On the other hand, the games industry is formative for the medium we are working with, and as such cooperation would be of interest.
What is it that the academia can offer the industry in Australia, and how to we bridge the gap? A penny for your insights …
Kevin emphasized in his emails some of the hard, economical facts of life for the industry and furthermore some of the major problems in working with academics. Of his many good points, the following are especially generic:
1) For the most part, nothing usable for the industry has come from academics (especially outside the technical fields of research), which is one of the reasons that the industry does not bother to talk to the academia. The “softer” areas of games research (sociology, psychology, humanities, language etc.) is even harder pressed to produce results of interest to an industry that deals in concrete, technical terms.
2) There is a conflict of interest between the academics, who wants to publish their work, and the games industry that is troubled by sketchy patenting laws, and need to keep research/content a secret, so that they maintain their advantage.
3) Academic need to realize that games are not games, but serious business with careers at stake. The line of development is also volatile which detracts from the wish to share information. With in-house researchers in numbers far outclassing the academia, outside research rarely makes it into the games industry.
I think most of us can agree that not all research should be engineered towards industrial uses. On the other hand, the games industry is formative for the medium we are working with, and as such cooperation would be of interest.
What is it that the academia can offer the industry in Australia, and how to we bridge the gap? A penny for your insights …
