Living in an Augmented Reality

I’ve been thinking about board games and card games recently (ok, I’ve been thinking about them for years, but over the past few days, I’ve been thinking about them more than I have all semester).  Part of the motivation I have for creating “AR board games” (AR games that combine computer games and board/card games) is to recreate the social play experience of these games.  The experience I imagine is that of sitting around a table, playing a game with friends, where you are looking at each other and playing in the same physical space.  These experiences seem qualitatively different than the experience of multiplayer computer/console games, even games on the Wii.

But, I wonder about some of the non-obvious ways ways these games are different.  Today, as I was walking to the coffee shop to get beans for our espresso machine, I was thinking about the ways games enforce rules, and how board games and card games are fundamentally different than computer games.  With board and card games, rule enforcement is left up to the players;  they know the rules, and they abide by them.  Even when there is nobody around to “catch” them people naturally follow the rules;  to cheat removes the fun.  My dad played solitaire for hours to unwind after working shifts in an auto plant, and as far as I know, he never cheated.  What would be the point?

Computer games, on the other hand, encourage players to do anything the game allows to win.  Because the system is closed and the rules are enforced by the computer, finding ways to get around the system is part of the fun for many players.  If the game let’s you do it, it must be ok!

But, this presents a problem, which I’ll put this way:  will players treat hybrid computer/board games (or computer/card games) as board/card games or as computer games?  Will they play along and follow the rules, even if nobody is there to “call them on it”, or will they do what they can to win?  When there is a high score board, and achievements to unlock,  will players be content to take what the deck gives, or will they stack the cards?

This question is more than academic, because it impacts the kinds of games we can create.  Consider Sony’s Eye of Judgement, which is designed assuming players will treat the game as a computer game, and thus is structured to allow the computer to enforce the rules.

For those of you who have played the game, you know how awkward it is.  After playing for a while, you realize that you are playing a relatively complex card game (ala Magic), but one where the computer’s main job is to enforce the rules. The computer is used for little else, beyond adding eye-candy to justify playing the game in awkward space of the PS Eye camera.

But beyond the awkwardness, one can’t help but wonder what the game might have been like if the players were trusted to follow the rules and enlisted in the gameplay.  What kind of games could we create if the player was allowed to move cards fluidly, was allowed to manipulate their environment naturally, and not treated as a hostile, untrustworthy interloper?  What if the rules were presented and it was assumed people would follow them?

Imagine a single player augmented card game that starts with the player shuffling a deck and laying out 9 cards in a grid.  No checking by the computer, no proactive rule enforcement.  BUT, like traditional solitaire, the placement of the cards determines much about how the game unfolds.  Would such a game work?  It’s hard to say.  If a player approaches it like a card game, where the goal is to enjoy a pleasant diversion for a few minutes, and challenge yourself to solve a puzzle, perhaps such a game would work.

But, will players even consider that approach?  After years of being trained by computer games to take any advantage offered by the computer, will they “cheat” and chose a card layout designed to give them the best start to the game?  Will they even consider this “cheating”?

I’m not sure, but it certainly impacts the kinds of games we can create.

I was looking at the video of this app, “Jigsaw Live,” as I look at most potentially interesting AR apps.  On the surface, it sounds interesting:  ” an AR jigsaw puzzle.”   I’ve been interested in making AR jigsaw puzzles for a while (heck, I even went to the extreme of sending mail to my favorite puzzle company, Stave, to see if I could interest them, to no avail).  But, to me, the concept is about augmenting a puzzle.

After all, AR apps really need to have two components: reality + augmenting.  If reality doesn’t really matter, than why bother with making it an AR app (for example, holding up the phone in this app to solve the “puzzle” is tiring, as it is with any app that requires you to hold the phone up for a period of time).  And, you need to augment the reality in some way … right?  Bring these two things together, and then add something fun, exciting, engaging or useful.

So, let’s consider this app, then.

They have reality, you might say. It’s live video on the puzzle pieces, so that’s reality, right … or, is it?  Does reality matter? Not really, actually.  It’s just video.  Looking at something different doesn’t change the puzzle, nor affect the program.  Reality is “just a texture” … it could be a video or image from you camera roll, and it wouldn’t really change things.  The live video is cool at first;  but, in the end, it’s just a gimmick.

Going further, do they “augment” it?  No.  Their “reality” (the video texture) augments their puzzle, but reality isn’t augmented, nothing is moved out into the world, nothing about the world around you is enhanced.

Perhaps the title “Jigsaw Live:  Augmented Puzzle” would be a more accurate title?  I think so.   Unfortunately, even the puzzle doesn’t look that interesting.  Square pieces?  Up to 100?  For $2.99?  Yikes!  I would have bought this and played with it if it was $0.99, since I’ll pretty much buy any potentially interesting app for that.  But, for $3, you have to do better!    The “ultimate in puzzle fun” (to quote their page)?  Really?  One wonders if the authors even played a puzzle (a real one, not one of those 4×4 square slider puzzles, or the cornucopia of lame flash puzzles).

Ah well, another good app name taken.

I’m including their video here, so you can look at it now, and draw your own conclusions.  What do folks think … am I being too critical?