Controllers for Pong, Part 3: Planning

A while ago, I tested three early ideas for different controllers. Since then, I’ve broken down the paddle parameters: speed, direction, position and motion. These will be combined or isolated in a variety of ways. Some will be able to be controlled by the user versus others are products of the system. I hope to create controllers based on three categories:

  • object: akin to a typical controller, with buttons, switches, etc
  • environment: the controller is affected by its context (light, temperature, orientation, sound)
  • body: the movement and position of the user’s body itself input

Mapping the System: Various Object-Based Controllers

Bill of Materials

The Making of H2Do Ray Me, Part 1

Using water to act as switches, Sean and I have been building a water-piano. Building on the physical motif of keys, the water-piano is composed of a series of keys. Each key has two parts: the cup of water and a paddle.

Much of our prototyping focused on the mechanism of pressing the key: finding the right fulcrum point and how the fulcrum interfaced with the key itself.

We tried a number of different cups and found that the combination of tallness and sloped sides worked well for containing the water and sitting in within the paddle.
We tried a number of different cups and found that the combination of tallness and sloped sides worked well for containing the water and sitting in within the paddle.

We looked at different ways to maintain the alignment and stability of the key when it was pressed.

Vertical elements under the key prevented moved the fulcrum off the base of the cup to the point at which the vertical element starts sloping.
Vertical elements under the key prevented moved the fulcrum off the base of the cup to the point at which the vertical element starts sloping.
A straw sandwiched between two pieces of cardboard created a hinge to rotate around.
A straw sandwiched between two pieces of cardboard created a hinge to rotate around.

By using the corrugated cardboard, we further simplified the assembly to a single layer of material by aligning the corrugations with the hinge and slipping an 1/8” dowel inbetween the ridges.

A single dowel is threaded through each of the keys and a spacer. The wiring from each cup is gathered through a larger hole on the spacer element.
A single dowel is threaded through each of the keys and a spacer. The wiring from each cup is gathered through a larger hole on the spacer element.

Controllers for Pong, Part 2: Three Controllers

Force Sensors

Two force sensors control the movement of the paddle. The force sensor on the right moves the paddle up and while the other is for moving the paddle down. The degree of force is also mapped to the speed at which the paddle moves; more force = faster movement. If there is no force applied, the paddle stops moving. Similarly, when both sensors have the same force applied, the paddle is stationary.

link to code

Knob

The paddle is in a constant state of motion, the direction of which is controlled by the knob. Turning the knob to the left makes it go up, to the right makes it go down. To some degree, the user can behave more passively. They can observe the motion of both the paddle and ball and then act went wanting to make a change.

link to code

Photoresistor

The paddle is in a constant state of falling and the user needs to “push it up” by adjusting the light level. Reducing the light level detected by the sensor increased the paddles “resistance,” keeping it afloat. The user can find a certain level of light to keep the paddle stationary. This controller is dependent on its environmental context as it is affected by the ambient and direct lighting conditions. With the parameters currently set into code, can this version only be played away from a window otherwise the full level of control is not available?

link to code

Controllers for Pong, Part 1

Games are identified by a rule set, in which participants voluntary abide to a common framework of play. While the ruleset governs the behaviour of the players, it also determines the properties of tools and how they may be used by the players. Rules also outline the goal of the game. This may include a condition for winning and losing or when a game ends.

So, are games differentiated by their rulesets or their tools? Is it a combination of both? When changing one of the components of a game—the ruleset or the tools—while maintaining the other, is a new game created? The intent is to explore this question by experimenting with various sensors to create 24 iterations on new controls for a single-player version of Pong.

Digital Games, and Non-Digital (Social) Games

In comparing digitally-mediated games and non-digital games, perhaps it becomes a question of how the ruleset is interpreted and enacted? My use of “digital games” refers to games in which the ruleset is regulated by digital technology. The ruleset takes the shape of literal code: a series of variables, if-statements and for-loops. The ruleset is fixed and constantly engaged. The execution of the code is a process of continually comparing actions of a player with the ruleset and adjusting the context (the digital environment created by the game) in response to the player’s actions, as dictated by the rules.

A social game, or a non-digital game, is a game in which people interpret how the actions of players correspond to the ruleset. When a game is not mediated by digital technology, enacting the rules relies on interpretation by the player(s). In multi-player games, the expectation is that all involved concede to the same interpretation of the rules, otherwise players would be playing “different” games. Yet human interpretation is variable and thus allows for invention and opportunity to “manipulate” or operate within a deviation of the ruleset.

Without social interpretation, can digital games accommodate invention or cheating? Initially, my assumption was no. And perhaps this is true in that one cannot change the ruleset executed by the digital technology. But again through interpretation, one can “exploit” the ruleset. For example, in CandyCrush, when a player loses a life, they must wait for a period of time to regain it back. Knowing this, the player can adjust the clock on their smartphone to be past the required time period and will gain back the life immediately. While the ruleset itself was not changed, and the computer correctly interpreted the rule by comparing the duration of time since “death” with that of the computer’s clock, a player is able to interpret the rule, manipulate the controller (the computer), and thus exploit the constraint. Since the ruleset in a digital game is rigidly adhered to, it is easier to manipulate as it will not deviate. The player does not have to “guess” how a rule may be interpreted. But here, the manipulation by the player must occur outside the game. If the game itself tracked time, it would not be “tricked” in the same way.

Controllers as Extensions

In the case of games, “mapping” refers to the relationship between controls and their effects. What effect does the action of a control have on the play of the game and the digital representation of the tools?

The original version of Pong used rotary knobs to control the paddles on screen. Turning left moved the paddle up while turning the knob to the right moved the paddle down. Here the physical action which operates in one direction — horizontal — is mapped to movement in a different direction — the vertical axis. Furthermore, the physical extent of knob rotation corresponds to the visual extents of the digital screen on which the game is played. Although the physical direction of the mapping is not identical, players understand the digital effects of their physical actions.

In Pong, there are two sets of tools: the controls physically manipulated by the players (the knobs) as well as the paddle within the digital representation of the game that hits the ball. These two tools are inextricably linked as the digital paddle is controlled by the physical knob.

When a familiar game such as Pong is played with new physical controllers that have alternative mappings to the digital representation of the paddle, does this create a new game?

On Context and Frameworks

Reading Buxton’s preface to “Sketching User Experiences” felt like someone had crawled into my head and clearly articulated the messy thoughts that have been accumulating. He writes, bolding by me:

Some academics, such as Hummels, Djajadiningrat, and Overbeeke (2001), go so far as to say that what we are creating is less a product than a “context for experience.” Another way of saying this is that it is not the physical entity or what is in the box (the material product) that is the true outcome of the design. Rather, it is the behavioural, experiential, and emotional responses that come about as a result of its existence and its use in the real world.

Before arriving at ITP, I wrote in my statement: “To design an experience—whether it be architectural, social, digital—establishes a context for relationships to occur between people, between people and space, and between people and technology. Opportunity for interactive technologies resides in amplifying how individuals position themselves in this context. “

Fundamentally I think this interest in context and frameworks—the establishment of possibilities or constrains—is constantly being questioned through my work here at ITP

For example, this (work-in-progress / yet-to-be-realized) idea of an “endless” loom provides a framework for users to alter the ruleset which creates a pattern. They are actively engaged in generating the content while simultaneously adjusting the framework. These adjustments are recorded into the system for future (and past) users to examine, creating a visual artifact of the various interactions.

The question that keeps coming up when I consider these frameworks or contexts for experiences is: how much control does the user have to alter the framework itself? On the sliding scale of reciprocity between action and reaction, where does the framework fall?