As I read this I kept thinking Slime Mold…but beyond that lovely image, I wondered to what extent collective intelligence tools could be used to shape behavior based on the assumption that the work is representative of a collective.  A basic assumption of players is that the game is emergent, which persuades them to buy-in to the conclusion.  What if it is not?

Here is the description from the site – I think it would be great if someone could pull this off from class :).  The description is pretty vague and it is a trip to London afterall.    

The theme of the conference is “Theory & Design”, and some sample areas of interest are listed below: Fun, history of games, game theory, combat systems, socio-cultural issues, community, gaming culture, genres, design possibilities for the next generation, ethnicity, sound, character, immersion, play, widening markets, sex, casual games, agency, serious games, time & space, education, economic and industrial analysis, narrative, game auteurs, graphical styles, empirical analysis, gender, intermediality & transmediality, localisation, cultural differences, violence. Other topics related to Digital Game Theory & Design are also welcomed.

http://www.gameology.org/node/1496

Just Cause was released in 2006 about a specialist in “regime change.” (marketing magic = much nicer than mercenary and much less inflammatory than revolutionary.)  Here is the product description:

“In Just Cause, you take on the role of the flamboyant Rico Rodriguez – a specialist in regime change. The island of San Esperito is suspected of stockpiling WMDs and it’s your job to negate the threat to world peace. This little tropical paradise is about to implode as various factions vie for power. Play the island’s factions off against one another; incite a rebellion among the masses; or build alliances with rebel forces and drug cartels. “

hmmm…gamers every where – unite!

 http://www.online-casinos.com/news/news4364.asp

Thought #1  I will take another crack at convincing you that you don’t create magic circles, you just enter someone else’s – or in other words, we live in a world of concentric magic circles. There is a pretty big circle – the social contract – and it keeps going from there. While each of their definitions differed a bit Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all explained society vs. our agreement to play by certain rules to escape a life that is less than ideal. Human interaction is ruled by continuous creation of magic circles – which operate within each other…which means that they are bounded within the rules of the larger circle, which seriously brings in to question your ability to create one that is outside the bounds of society, culture, family, etc…..

Thought #2  Speaking of institutions – Caillois and Hezigna’s frameworks do not address institutional boundaries within which games are created – well. Or rather are overshadowed by them. Agon and Mimicry emphasise the dominant institutional framework by creating what it is that we aspire to – defining what is best and what is worth mimicking. Alea serves to create false hope that we may be able to beat the system – even though we won’t be able to in the end. Ilinx – the dangerous one – is the only time during which institutions or rules are challenged. I realize that I was privileging science as a framework in class but that is the focus of Caillois’ definition of ilinx – i.e. vertigo.

Thought #3  I realize this brings in the whole notion of Agency – I leave that discussion to another time.

Last Thought decided to run play, game and stake (idea which should also be developed further because it is larger than just agon or $$ in alea) the visual thesaurus for fun:

Game

Stake