View source for Edmund's Page

== Production 2 ==

Flow was mentioned a few times throughout Bogost’s book.  Having already read some work on the topic of flow, I felt it would be useful to dedicate a separate chapter to its coverage.  Bogost referenced an important work on flow by Csikszentmihalyi, and used the term in sections dealing with relaxation, and to a lesser degree in the 'Music' and 'Transit' sections.  The latter's mention was albeit, more likely based on a logistical definition such as when referring to traffic rates and volumes of people or goods.  

B’s ‘Music’ section, however, is a useful “in” to understanding flow due to its emphasis on timing, and various embodiments.  This is supported in athletic, and musical performance literature which espouses the benefits of flow-like states, and recommends rhythmic breathing, and other auditory devices. Many videogamers may find such training and strategies useful as well.

Cz's concept of flow can certainly account for relaxation, and performance.  These exist along axes of challenge, and skill (see the diagram).
[[File:File_Challenge_vs_skill_svg_Wikipedia.png|200px|thumb|left|alt text]]  
His and other work, also provide first hand accounts which begin to describe flow as a state of unison between body and mind.  Other definitions include great concentration, or absorption in an activity at hand.

B's book abounds on many of video games’ experiential aspects.  Maybe this is largely subjective (and contrary to what gamification consultants may say), or perhaps there are common aspects of videogames - such as art, music, or kitsch which can appeal (relax, worry, bore, arouse, etc.) broadly.

The general skill requirement of videogames often centres on manipulation of inputs towards an algorithmic end (winning a point, moving an avatar etc.).  These inputs consist of embodied activities such as precise, ordered manipulation of buttons, joysticks, or other devices.  The activities themselves, are notably similar to the inputs required in the performance of many musical instruments.  Furthermore, whatever might be occurring in-game impresses its own 'reading' challenges as well, and imposes strategic challenges, and an embodied demand of quick input reactions.  Exercise games are an especially interesting subset of games, which no doubt increase the physical demand of challenge, skill, and perhaps enjoyment as well. 

From discussion of players and roles we know that anyone can fill the protagonists' shoes.  Gaming communities are starting to become interested in watching and engaging with these players.  Consider the growth in popularity of game streaming and tournament broadcasts.  Much like athletic, or musical prowess, flow is an ever-present personal state, or quality.  Consequently, flow provides equal opportunity for entertainment and (along with some notable social skills and other factors) is capable of drawing a crowd.  The old adage says something along the lines of “it’s not important whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game”.  Some of the week 3 reading (Nolan & McBride, etc.) helped shed some light on superficial game-based learning, and gamification.  Interest in competition may always remain (wins and losses), but what is starting to compete with results for interest, is the players behind the competition, and their own unique “brand” of play.  Put simply, audiences are becoming curious, and captivated by ''how'' certain players play.

== Production 3 ==
This week’s production is roughly split into two sections.  These are connections between the trials of the hack-a-game game, and the workshop/game design literature; and an extension of the critique of gamification in digital game-based learning (DGBL).

Fullerton’s book outlines some practical considerations for game design.  Communication is listed early on, as “the most important skill” (Fullerton 2008, 5) that designers can develop.  This rang true in practice, as nearly all of the activities of the game-hacking exercise with the Space Race game focused on communication.  In addition to being most prevalent, it was also the most challenging, and rewarding activity.  It was largely unstructured, and undocumented.  This may have been appropriate for a small group of first-timers, but one does wonder to what degree such communication is ‘organic’ in professional practice.  Fullerton also includes a section dedicated to team communication, and lists formal meetings, or less formal (but still organized) ‘scrums’ as good communication structures.  Furthermore Fullerton identifies a set of common specifications, or documents being a big part of the design team’s work, and listed it as key to ‘standardizing’ communication (Fullerton 2008, 15).  One can certainly imagine the added challenges if in our relatively ‘fluid’ hack of Space Race, the three designers also approached from different ‘angles’ (e.g. education/background, competencies, vocabulary, etc.).

The Design Process of the hack-a-game game trial was similarly fluid, and seems describable by some combination of playercentric, and iterative.  In a way, the trial group did not consider player experience early enough in the process – something Fullerton would prefer (Fullerton 2008, 10-11) – but it seemed to emerge through iteration.  A good example is when the group discovered they had greatly extended the length of the game, and reactively swapped scoring, for a ‘last-goal-wins’ mechanic.  It is possible that the team was rather lucky with the ‘path’ of hacks chosen.  Perhaps an initial idea was not so foundational, and thus did not end up pigeon-holing any subsequent ideas (i.e. into a similar theme, mechanic, etc.).  Imagining the Process as an infinity of possible hack-decisions at the outset: surely some of these decisions take on a ‘tree-limb’, or fractal form.  For example, decision 1, may only allow for a series of 1a,b,c decisions, and precludes additional decisions of 2, 3, … n.  Another point to consider as part of the Process, is that this trial of the hack-a-game game involved an analog game, and therefore required little computational literacy.  Certain functions, and conditionals were instantiated, and modified in analog – and it is likely that a digital Design Process would be affected by the group’s competency of enacting these (most certainly in speed, or number of possible hack tests) in a digital format.

In transitioning to a discussion of DGBL, there are opinions, research, and policy which exist on a spectrum between full support, or opposition.  One of these is the concept of digital natives, and their perceived (yet not wholly proven) skill with digital technologies.  Other supportive arguments seem clear-cut but are murky in their own right.  Researchers such as diSessa and Wing see that there “is a growing acknowledgement among educational researchers, computer scientists and teachers that “computational thinking” and algorithmic logic ought to be considered a kind of “core literacy”” (Jenson & Droumeva, 2017).  Broadly conceived, an algorithm is a process of problem solving.  Is there any risk/complication associated with learning computer science principles through gameplay/design ''only'', especially at a young age?   Further to this, one might question if lusory attitudes (an important facet of game play, and development) may be coopted for the facilitation of certain curricula.  Bernard Suits defines a lusory attitude as “the player’s adoption of the rule-set of a game” (Nolan & McBride 2014, 599). One specific concern is the potential tension (or worse – passivity) which may result between critical thinking (e.g. challenging norms, questioning society, etc.) and the installation of a series of DGBL rule-sets.  This is especially concerning given education’s historical mandate of preparing students for future careers, and curricula around ‘making’ with technology that are purportedly built on an “understanding of the ''good things''” (emphasis added) (Thumlert et al. 2018, 705).  At times, this has amounted to little more than superficial ‘gamification’, essentially only serving to extend a curricular desire for another form of accounting. Gamification can and has been installed into professional work settings with varying degrees of success, but it is not yet clear what implications may exist for these so-called digital natives who are soon to enter the workforce. 

'''References'''

Fullerton (2008). “Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games”.  ''Elsevier''

Jenson & Droumeva (2017).  “Revisiting the Media Generation: Youth Media Use and Computational 	Literacy instruction”.  
''E-Learning and Digital Media.''  Vol. 14(4), pp. 212-225.

Nolan & McBride (2014). “Beyond Gamification: Reconceptualizing Game Based Learning in Early Childhood Environments.” 
''Information, Communication & Society.''  Vol. 17(5), pp. 594-608. 

Thumlert et al. (2018). “Learning Through Game Design: A Production Pedagogy”. ''Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Game-Based Learning ECGBL''

== Production 4 ==
Option 2: De-Composing Runescape

Some brief background:  Runescape is a popular MMORPG.  Roughly 2000 players can be accommodated on a single game world (server), with an instantaneous average of 100,000 active players (MisplacedMe 2019).  A players’ first actions consist of modifying the appearance of their avatar ‘character’ and completing a tutorial of the major facets of the game.

The premise of the game is multifaceted (combat, quest completion/puzzle-solving, construction, mini-games etc.) with an underlying economic resource production/management theme.  It is set in the realm of Gielinor – best described as a stylized medieval earth that features fantasy elements (think: Martin’s continental setting for the Game of Thrones series, or Tolkien’s setting of Middle Earth).  
Implicit in the combat, and resource gathering mechanics is a sense of linear progression from reality-inspired, to fantasy-inspired.  This perhaps parallels a model of scientific innovation, ''or'' historical “ages” of production that connote some ‘better’ performance.  For example, the earliest accessible metals (bronze or iron) correspond to a low level of combat weapon damage, or armour protection, and resource gathering speed/efficiency.  Higher level, better performing metals consist of adamant (‘borrowed’ from mythology, and Marvel comics lore), rune, and dragon (‘proprietary’), to name a few.  The association of linear progress with performance/efficiency may reinforce a few pedagogies about innovation (e.g. it always or is only to be found in the future).  

The rule sets and systems are conceptually quite simple.  They are made complex or dynamic by the interactions (or lack thereof*) with other players or non-player characters.  

The primary mechanic is movement.  It is constrained to an orthogonal grid within the player’s field of view, and performed through clicking a chosen destination.  A pathfinding routine is then called, and the player’s movement is animated.  This is one of the earliest remaining ‘foundational’ elements of Runescape and has influenced gameplay in numerous ways.  Foremost, it rewards exploration into the unknown – the initial location of the game caters to learning, and low-level play.  Furthermore, over time and with practice, players discover how to manipulate pathfinding mechanics, and (more importantly) that of NPCs.  A key combat skill (but one that may never be formalized through the tutorial) is the ability to attract and trap an aggressive NPC or player behind obstacles or barriers.  This brings to mind Fullerton’s suggestions about playtesting.  It is entirely possible that Runescape’s original designer – Andrew Gower envisioned rigid ‘to the death’ combat scenarios (valuing preparation, and strategy).  However, player tendencies (e.g. curiosity and exploration) led to a more dynamic conception of strategy, which added flight, and avoidance to fight events.  Flexibility and a willingness to adapt have allowed this rather unique tactic to flourish as a somewhat tacit aspect of Runescape culture.

There are no explicit win conditions, save for the narrative-laden Quests that a player may opt to begin.  Goals, and win-conditions are largely self-determined.  Some view skill mastery as a goal (i.e. “maxing out”), while others may choose to try and maximize their resources, defeat other players in combat, attain certain items, complete quests, play mini-games, or socialize.  There is an explicit loss condition when a player loses all of their health points.  This results in a ‘respawn’ where all new players enter the game (a relatively safe location), and (depending on the circumstances of their death) possible loss of held items.  Other implied ‘losses’ include poor investment, or receiving disciplinary actions (such as mutes, or account bans).    
Another important mechanic is the random number generator (RNG) and drop tables.  Greater skill accumulation (in combat or resource-gathering skills) results in better position along the mentioned performance/”age” line.  However, in order to maintain interest, and/or competitive balance an element of randomness is introduced to most activities via RNG.  The RNG-driven drop tables also greatly impact the game economy.  That is, it determines the probable amounts of resources and items that ‘enter’ the game through player actions.

One instance of gameplay based on relative isolation (in contrast to interaction) is worth mentioning.  The developers noticed a trend emerging (The Runescape Wiki 2014):  For whatever reason (added challenge, etc.) players would not engage in trade with others.  Instead they would look to ‘perform’ the game under a self-imposed ruleset of self-sufficiency.  This led to the official instantiation of the Iron(wo)man game mode, with official restrictions and an accompanying player title.

'''Update'''

The following are some ideas that expand the discussion to include some of the learning content and readings.  Concepts about digital games and situated learning/cognition come out via the movement-exploration mechanic of RS.  Controlling the avatar character allows for a learning that is "an outcome of the interaction between an individual and the environment or social setting" (Marone, 4). In addition to being a primary driver of narrative, movement and exploration via the player character avatar also produce a hybridization with the player user.  This is further supported by other facets of the game such as the extensive customization of avatar aesthetics, which serve to visually connect player and avatar.  A nice, combined example of visual, movement-based hybridization is also present in the game in the form of gestures known as emotes.  Examples include waving, cheering, thinking or various skill-related emotes.  Most emotes can be used for various non-textual communications with other players or NPCs.   

Declarative knowledge application (though there are a few examples) recedes into the background of RS for the most part, while procedural knowledge tends to come to the fore.  
The tacit movement skills, such as the barrier trapping mentioned above, illustrate a procedural knowledge application.  Though it can be communicated, it still is relatively non-declarative.  A case of "you know it when you see it". Successful application requires ''performance'', but few probably understand or even know of the underlying mechanics of a pathfinding algorithm.  Anecdotally: 'luck' and observation may play a major role as conditions for this type of learning, unless the player has the benefit of social connection with existing players.  Still, it is one of those digital skills/activities for which successful performance might be based on a feel, and reflexive response to certain visual cues, rather than adherence to strict instruction. 

Relatively recently - developer and community posts began to refer to the RNG's role in the item-drop, or "loot" system (in response to player community curiosity).  Shortly after - either out of comedy, ignorance, etc. - players have since coined the phrase "I used up all my RNG" to refer to an instance or series of perceived "bad luck" where RNG is thought to play a part.  Regardless of its inaccuracy, this phrase may be grounded in some sort of declarative knowledge about probabilities, yet its use is entirely grounded in procedural knowledge (i.e. prior experience of dynamically determined probable outcomes).  
Attempts to make procedural probability knowledge declarative are ongoing both in/outside of the game.  Within: developers have released statistical tracking add-ons, that can help a player manage personal probabilistic data.  Outwith: community sites (including wikis) attempt to perform the same knowledge gathering - but with it wholly determined (i.e. composed of multiple players' contributed data).

'''References'''

MisplacedMe (2019).  “Runescape Player Count by Qtr Hr" Accessed at: http://www.misplaceditems.com/rs_tools/graph/

The Runescape Wiki (2014).  "Ironman & Drop Table Reworks" Accessed at: https://runescape.fandom.com/wiki/Update:Ironman_%26_Drop_Table_Reworks

Marone (2016). "Playful Constructivism: Making Sense of Digital Games for Learning and Creativity Through Play, Design, and Participation"  ''Journal of Virtual Worlds Research'' Vol. 9(3).

== Production 5 ==
Opt. 2: Play/Games definition a la H & C + Investigation via a Game

Personally, my favorite concept which represents play is that its nature cannot be determined and/or explained through scientific principles, and modes of investigation.  Perhaps related, is play’s lack of moral function (Huizinga, 102).  Play is also primary.  I use primary in the sense of cognitive, but also evolutionary development in the same spirit as when Huizinga and Caillois refer to young children and animals.  Primary often connotes an inferiority relative to the more-developed (not a sentiment I agree with mind you, i.e. “simple is hard”; “K.I.S.S.”; etc.).  The notion of more-developed (anti-play) manifests as serious, daily-life, or boring types of activities.  Usually these activities (even in complex examples like serious play) hinge on some aspect of society, or culture (e.g. economy, social status/class, etc.).  I recall reading some research – I cannot remember the exact field, but perhaps it was psychology – that put forth an interesting finding. That is that biological adults needing to perform serious, and “adult” activities (and more importantly, to be ''seen performing'' these activities) indicates a fundamentally childish characteristic, or desire.  Note: that this extension of play vs. seriousness includes this research not as an indictment of adult-serious, or play-childish executive function.  It is more meant to question the performativity of play vs. seriousness, and the rigid linear model that is always applied to what is clearly a subjective spectrum composed of multiple factors such as enjoyment, and utility.  Consider that some experience a genuinely dizzying vertigo from the play of effective accounting.  Some approach it as a mimetic activity that straddles play/the serious.  Yet some others treat it as an entirely boring, serious activity.  
Thus Caillois’ work is helpful as a framework for what might be termed ''applications of play''.  Furthermore, these applications are self- or co-determined expressions.  Obviously this definition requires additional research, and distillation, and may be best openly presented as an ongoing exercise.  

Therefore:<br />
Play is a primary application of subjective, or ''labile'' expression.  It is devoid of moral function, and relatively slippery for analysis by systematic, rational modes of enquiry.  

The game I will test this definition upon, is Halo: Reach (HR).  The game features a variety of ludus and paidia according to various modes of play.  There a number of game modes ranging from the story-driven campaign, to survival scenarios, to custom, and competitive multiplayer.  I will explore some of the game mechanics, and coded preferences for subjective expression which can be controlled by a player to some extent.  The best “in” to these mechanics is through HR’s multiplayer-mode “matchmaking” system.  In addition to persistent local area network (LAN) multiplayer, HR is the third installment of the franchise which features online competitive/co-operative game play.  In this installment, players are able to tailor their probable player network for the next game they join, based on four qualities under the banner of ‘Psych Profile’:<br />
Chattiness.  Binary option for preference of chatty, or quiet teammates.<br />
Motivation.  Binary option for preference of winning, or good-time seeking teammates.<br />
Teamwork.  Binary option for preference of team player, or lone wolf teammates.<br />  
Tone.  Binary option for preference of rowdy, or polite chatting teammates.<br />

Multiplayer games offer various outlets for social expression, and rules and social controls (such as the psych profile) serve to introduce lability and customization of the player experience.  While being a very play-centric concept, it also hits on the above definition’s caveat of lack of moral function.  HR’s social controls remove certain groups of players.  This brings to mind exclusionary practices, which are certainly prevalent in games of all types, and often made explicit in the case of childrens’ turbulent and lusory attitudes to preference setting.  It is not uncommon to hear of games which restrict participation from the outset (or even during play) for apt, or arbitrary reasons.  For example, potential players may be excluded from a game for reasons of social status, their hygienic perception, so-called “competitive balance”, or any other indicator.  In HR social controls are based on indicators which are quantified and referred to as metrics.  The social control condition of play thus shifts from being based in public personal/co-determined subjective opinion, or objective truths – to a digital environment that enforces social relations in a private, probabilistic manner.      

It is perhaps ironic, that the campaign narrative, which is structured around a variety of individual team-member play styles does not allow for the same dynamic preference setting as the multiplayer match-making experience.  One may engage in prescribed teamwork-, or ‘lone-wolf-’ style campaign missions, but can rarely break the mould, or effect AI/NPC social traits such as chattiness or motivation.   In addition to network customization, HR offers play as a medium for subjective expression by (an albeit limited) customization of the player’s multiplayer avatar.  These customizations effect many forms of expression such as gender, voice (patterned after some campaign characters) as well as the player’s armour form, colour, and markings.  Furthermore, customizations can include capabilities which affect the competitive quality or style of play.  A player may select one default special ability or swap them at will in certain games modes.  This leads to a relatively unknown element in multiplayer matches in terms of specific ability distribution.  This is perhaps the developers’ best effort at introducing a dynamic means of expression which varies based on different interactions with the game as a system.

An interesting claim provided in the explanation of multiplayer network settings is that (in all cases): “changing preferred [setting] will not affect search times.”  This is perhaps an indication of the contemporary developer wisdom which suggests that players value a gaming experience with little down-time between games/rounds.  If the disclaimer is accepted as true, it also may indicate that the valuation of speed exceeds that of these various social qualities. 

Huizinga (1955).  “Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon”.  In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Homo Ludens) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via Beacon Press.''

Caillois (1961).  “The Definition of Play and The Classification of Games”. In: The Game Design Reader (Orig.: Man, Play and Games) ''MIT Press, Reprinted via University of Illinois Press''

== Production 7 ==
<gallery mode=packed-hover>
File:Reach-Farmhouse.jpg|Fig. 1- Reach Farmhouse 
File:Reach-Turbines.jpg|Fig. 2- Rural Wind Turbines
File:Caracalla park(Tacitus Halopedia).jpg|Fig. 3- Caracalla Park - a good setting to harvest wind on New Alexandria's outskirts
</gallery>

This production looks to build on concepts of aesthetics, the subaltern and future imaginaries in the cultural studies of videogames.  These include: future imaginaries surrounding energy security, and the aesthetics of future, urban, military, or rural renewable energy technology.  This work will also consider the subsequent effects of: perceived canonical inconsistency and; affect (e.g. valorization, frustration, etc.) resulting from narrative.  The Halo franchise will be used to situate the former, and the game Halo: Reach, for the Xbox360 will be used as a lens to explore the remaining concepts through its narrative-laden campaign mode.  A novel contribution is made at the end of the discussion of futurism aesthetics.  This is that inconsistent experimentation with a future imaginary aesthetic, produces a specific, visual, ''tokenism''.

Halo: Reach’s opening level renders several small wind-energy harvesters across the landscape of what appears to be a dedicated farming planet (named Reach).  This is familiar territory, as It is through this representation of a future setting that persuasion and direct engagement challenges are bypassed (Abraham 2018).  Abraham’s work is based on the game ARMA 3, as an island setting which represented a number of large, centralized renewable energy facilities and systems (solar arrays, wind farms, etc.).  One can argue that in reality, from a functional standpoint: rural communities, and – more specifically – household units are the setting for the most effective ''present'' implementations of renewable energy generation.  Certainly, such units have been a major factor in the genesis, and growth in popularity of such technologies for pragmatic factors such as distance/inefficiency in traditional access of centralized systems, spatial seclusion, etc.  Distributed, smaller-scale implementation such as on Reach is just as likely (if not more so) a scenario for near-future energy generation capacities, relative to large-scale facilities.  

It is unclear whether some of Reach’s rural inhabitants (mostly unencountered due to evacuation) are permanent settlers, or if they are transient labourers in agriculture, or resource extraction.  Though the farms, and shipping hubs portray technological sophistication/futurism, secure in their access to energy, they also communicate humble pragmatism.  Structures make use of the natural landscape, rarely appearing out of place, and only seemingly connected by informal infrastructure such as dirt roads [see gallery figure 1]. This is reinforced by contrast with the introduction of an investigating Spartan team, their military technology at the fore.  This technology includes vehicles and weapons which propel due to the work of diegetic, combustion-based mechanisms.  Later in the game, Reach is revealed to have areas with more advanced industries and infrastructure, such as ship-building facilities, titanium mines, and large cities (like New Alexandria).  Renewable energy seems fine for activities like farming or powering small rural dwellings, but strictly political-economic applications (such as military, or city operations) do not make overt use of this kind of energy.  A colonial otherness thus contributes to the perception of a renewable energy tokenism.  Simply defined: tokenism is a perfunctory or symbolic effort.  Often it refers to instances of racialism and efforts to portray equality.  It seems that tokenism is the antithesis, or saboteur of Ian Bogost’s & Mary Flanagan’s ideas of subversive video games.  It is an act of appeasement.  Generally, tokenism equates to some new venture, but ultimately has no intention to achieve disruption or transformative effects of any significance, resulting in preservation of the status quo. <br />
Renewable energy tokenism pervades due to the omission of meaningful representations of military, or city-scale applications. There is a definite otherness to the rural treatment of renewable energy, which is somehow unable (or unwilling) to translate to urban settings – the traditional site of colonial power. Donald Schön states that “experiments should not “confirm” and “answer” to a challenge but affirm that challenge”.  He also goes on to relate that computer science (game design included) is turning to a model of continuous dialogue between values and practice (Schön 1983).   The modeling of futuristic, vertically-oriented wind turbine assets [see gallery figure 2] is valuable as an experiment of exposure to an imagined energy future. Designers do not need to necessarily valorize renewable energy, or a specific technology.  However, in order to be a successful experiment, Halo: Reach’s designers require dialogue with a greater treatment of the scientific principles of experimental procedure.  The enactment of tenets such as rigorous application, and adequate sampling, throughout the design of Halo: Reach would give the renewable energy imaginary its proper due.  

Energy security is a particularly troubling topic when Halo: Reach is viewed as a prequel in the Halo franchise, as this was the first installment to represent renewable energy generation mechanisms in any detail.  The canon of renewables in the franchise (used in the all-encompassing sense of zeitgeist, or orthodoxy) is thus ''fragmented''.  Audiences will view the omission of renewables (in chronologically earlier releases) as a loss of momentum for the fictional renewable energy industry/market.  Economic inflections are common in video games.  Baerg says that the procedural rhetoric of video games supports an economically inflected rationality behind the making of choices (Baerg 2009), and the example of Reach perhaps represents an economic-narrative element. Mukherjee made use of the concept of canon toward his definition of sub-altern amid postcolonial undertones in video games.  Ultimately, subaltern is a concept concerned with writing history from below, but it often lacks a voice to articulate itself.  This facility of articulation involves exercise of any number of powers such as political, social, or economic (Mukherjee 2018). Thus as a perceived element that was “phased out” in chronological Halo canon, renewable energy generation is made subaltern.  From Reach to the next installment, questions arise about renewables’ economic, political, and/or social viability/tenability.   The sort of precedence offered by a prequel takes on features of an articulation strategy known as the ''single story'' (SS). This is a narrative device that has supported colonial and postcolonial efforts, by retaining power and limiting articulation of native cultural voice (Adichie 2009).  The Reach prequel thus imposes a narrative that shapes (and possibly changes) thoughts and beliefs about the overall canon. <br />    
Even throughout a playthrough of Reach one questions renewables’ compatibility with urban-futurist aesthetics, or whether it is politically or economically scalable to city-, or military-scale use.  The aesthetics of New Alexandria are affective.  One can imagine living ''somewhere in these cities'', making use of its many interconnected public squares, and plazas.  They communicate clean minimalism, and the urban planning nears complete integration, but there is also tremendous opacity.  One cannot glean (from the exterior) the program, or purpose of any individual building or cluster – including its energy need, or potential sources [see gallery figure 3].  The possible answer to the questions one develops about renewables (though never fully settled) is ever-present in the negative. This is performed by visible omission relative to the game’s opening experience with contrasting rural applications. 
Far more extreme would be the gamer that extrapolates and attributes the narrative of the fall of Reach to some lack of preparedness, capability, or force associated with the presence or use of renewables.  The player’s perspective as a Spartan that is equipped with gas-powered technology performs a valorization operation, and presents renewables as a weak, or ineffectual energy source by contrast.  Keep in mind that Reach represented the first such engagement with the Covenant (one of the main enemy forces) in earth-controlled space and runs on an emotional narrative.  The campaign always ends as an integrated cutscene with the player controlling the last remaining Spartan as the planet is ‘glassed’ by the victorious Covenant.  Irrational responses and extreme associations therefore are to be expected.  These sorts of classification of narrative represent an in for discussion of an interesting concept that is situated between climate science and urban planning.  This concept is defensible drama (DD).  In DD, emotional response is valued as an input toward personal behavioural, and collective change.  Climate change simulations, and other rendered representations are situated against a backdrop of local contexts and are used to elicit the emotional response (Sheppard et al. 2008).  DD represents an attempt to navigate a specific group-singular narrative but can also be perceived as single story articulation.  Again, science and experimental rigor act as ‘fail-safes’ to concerns about this type of representation’s objectivity, accuracy, and ethical concerns.

'''References'''

Abraham (2018). “Video Game Visions of Climate Futures: ARMA 3 and Implications for Games and Persuasion” Games and Culture Vol. 13(1), pp.  71-91.

Adichie (2009). “The Danger of a Single Story” TedGlobal.  Accessed at:<br /> https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story

Baerg (2009). “Governmentality, Neoliberalism, and the Digital Game” Symploke Vol. 17, pp. 115–127.

Mukherjee (2018).  “Playing Subaltern” Games and Culture Vol. 13(5), pp.  504-520.

Schön (1983). “Reflective Practice”. Basic Books New York

Sheppard (2008). “Can Visualisation Save the World? - Lessons for Landscape Architects from Visualizing Local Climate Change”.  Accessed at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255570495_Can_Visualisation_Save_the_World_-_Lessons_for_Landscape_Architects_from_Visualizing_Local_Climate_Change

== Meta-Reading Notes ==
Coming soon (working on digitization)...

== Other Content ==
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTOXDnX-HA Edmund's Game Proposal 7/2/2019]

(Forgot to mention '''Possible tools!''')

RPGmaker: for easy/built-in item, or resource manager 

Unity: 3D/more visual detail, agent pathfinding (for if a Pikmin-style game)  

'''Reference Links:'''

[https://www.catan.com/game/catan-scenarios-oil-springs Catan OilSprings Expansion]

[https://www.pcgamesn.com/hellblade-senuas-sacrifice/hellblade-documentary Hellblade Article]

== My UserPage ==
[https://www.refugeesrespond.org/dadaabwikimedia/index.php?title=User:Edmund]