One of the events that kicked off Brighton Digital Festival was dConstruct, the always thought provoking conference run by clearleft.

As usual I found most of the sessions interesting, but not always relevant as there’s a heavy design rather than development focus. The most relevant talk this year was Kevin Slavin’s final talk, Reality is Plenty, which argued that augmented reality is not the next big thing, just as it wasn’t in 2005.

Despite Kevin having a dig at Second Life and having spent a lot of time working on Augmented Reality with Blast Theory while at Nottingham University, I mostly agreed. While there are definitely use cases which benefit from augmented reality (fighter pilot navigation systems and things like Carbon Goggles which are all about making invisible aspects of objects visible) and virtual reality (simulation and virtual meeting spaces) there are plenty of others which are better served by other interfaces. Environments like Second Life are particularly exciting as they allow people to quickly prototype systems to discover which applications work and which don’t.

With both AR and VR it’s tempting to argue that they allow for intuitive interfaces as they model or overlay the real world: people know how to navigate a 3D space so they know how to use a 3D environment and they know how to use AR as they can see. Anyone who has done their time climbing the Second Life learning curve or trying to use AR to find their way around will know this clearly isn’t true. Apparently more abstract interfaces like maps, which talk to the mind rather than the senses are often much easier to use.

There’s a lot of work to be done to make both AR and VR as easy to use as 2D interfaces, let alone as natural as using real world senses. Now that the huge technical problems around networking virtual environments and tracking real world objects with mobile devices are starting to be solved, it is mostly UI work that needs to be done to make these technologies more widely used.

Even if the UX issues are solved there will still be many cases where speaking to the mind is much better than speaking to the senses.

On Friday I jumped on the train to London to attend Playful 2010, a one day conference put on by mudlark of World of Love fame. Despite billing itself as a day of cross “disciplinary frolicking” and featuring designers, podcasts, discussions of narrative, iphone augmented paper games and Disco Snake the thing that stood out for me was a thread running through the talks that addressed a fundamental of game design: meaningful choices.

Jonathan Smith talked about the dangers of giving people too much freedom in his talk about the Lego Games. Lego is almost a shorthand for freedom: the easy to understand system of knobs and anti-knobs that allows 2 4x2 blocks to be combined in 9 million ways an ultimate sandbox aspired to by games and virtual worlds like Second Life. This open, free system led Travellers Tales to add lots of open, free features to it’s early Lego games that were largely ignored by players who need boundaries and feedback from the game to determine ‘what I want versus what’s expected of me’. Choosing freedom and rebellion is more meaningful when it is clear that I am exercising my freedom and not doing the expected.

Margaret Robertson talked about and in the current sandbox game du jour, Minecraft, which has enough terror and threat in its horror filled night to make the choices made during the day meaningful and to reward mastery of it’s sandbox — a sandbox that compelled Margaret to stay up until early in the morning carving her slides out of earth, building them out of wood and animating them with flowing water and flames burning down the assertion that “games = points”.

It was this misguided assertion that Sebastien Deterding talked about in his look at the ‘gamification’ of the world around us. When all that gamified web sites like foursquare do is allow the accumulation of points and badges there are no meaningful choices, no mastery, no way to rebel against expectations, no play and no fun. Gamification results in loyalty schemes that are no more meaningful than Progress Quest.

The importance of being able to rebel against expectations was echoed by Alexis Kennedy’s talk about delicious misery in Echo Bazaar, a social game that would be another meaningless progression to inevitable success if it weren’t for contrarian missions that allow players to opt-in to getting their characters exiled for scandal or driven insane by demons. These missions inflict real harm on characters, but when properly signposted are the most enjoyed and shared missions: allowing players to be badass. When a game makes success inevitable, misery and failure is play and meaningful escape.

Pat Kane, formerly of Hue and Cry and more recently author of The Play Ethic gave a fascinating talk about wordplay, humour and his journey from disillusionment at the comedy industry, to fascination with humour through the Old Jews Telling Jokes’ stories of Jews laughing in the face of persecution. When misery and failure is inevitable, humour and play is rebellion. An ultimate, meaningful demonstration of freedom and humanity when all hope of victory is gone.

Was without a doubt the phrase I heard most often yesterday, especially if you include variants like “Not Like Second Life”, “A bit like Second Life” and “Unlike Second Life”. Whatever else it’s achieved, Second Life has definitely become the frame of reference for the small and somewhat myopic crowd that made up the delegates at the sparsely populated Virtual Worlds Conference in London yesterday.

Vastpark is not like Second Life because it works in a web browser. Everyone on the web integration panel seemed to agree that virtual worlds in a browser is the next step, so I was glad to be there to question the TechCrunch consensus. How does having a world in a browser help? What does back and forward mean to a virtual world? What does it mean for presence to have 10 tabs open looking in to different parts of the same virtual world? Why would you want your view further constained by extra web browser widgets? Isn’t 3D in the browser going to be a blood bath for the next few years? Aren’t you really just using the browser as a download path? I suggested that the final question was the real reason that developers are pushing virtual worlds on the web and that the integration that most people want is to be able to use existing web and 2D media while using virtual worlds and use web services as a universal data bus between virtual worlds and other web aware platforms.

MPEG-V is not like Second Life because it’s a standard defined by 35 companies which is much better than the emerging Linden led standard according to Dr. Yesha Sivan in what was the worst talk I’ve heard in a long time. Not only did he make the standardisation process sound like a 3 year political bun-fight by people who didn’t know much about virtual worlds and who might come up with a bad standard, he managed to spell MPEG and Google incorrectly, called Sun’s Darkstar, Blackstar and attributed a Ugotrade quote to Philip Rosedale amongst other clangers. He was roundly rebutted by a large part of the audience including Tara5 Oh who questioned the need for old fashioned standards processes in the web era. Thank goodness for rough consensus and running code.

Most of the virtual worlds talked about in the investment panel were not like Second Life, but were nearly all Club Penguin clones. This copy the big exit attitude was called out by one of the audience as it seemed to be at odds with a lot of the talk about wanting to back the first in a market, but at least one of the panel is still looking for a successful 18+ social world play. The panel ended with a show of hands from people wanting money and people wanting to invest, but the economic climate made the whole affair very muted with lots of the panelists saying that they are slowing down rates of investment as it’s difficult to get existing companies off their books.

As with Virtual Policy 08 and the Virtual Worlds Forum the most valuable parts of the conference were the spaces between sessions. I had another very worthwhile discussion with Adam Frisby of OpenSim about C# script compatibility between OpenSim and Second Life. The straw man design we talked about was to have an idiomatic .NET interface for event handling that can be used by C# scripts and adapted for LSL scripts and a set of static library methods for manipulating the world that would be used directly by LSL scripts and wrapped by user created libraries to provide an idiomatic object oriented interface. Adam was particularly interested in the idea of user created wrapper libraries as it would allow the creation of an OpenSim interface library that could be ported to Second Life and implemented in terms of the ll* static methods. OpenSim could then agree to support the common behaviour of this library in Second Life and OpenSim instead of having to support the gamut of ll* methods some of which don’t map well to OpenSim internals. As well as defining a common set of events and ll* static methods that are supported on both platforms there would need to be a way of extending the interface with new events and library methods. In addition Adam was interested in making the event propogation configurable so that a single script could respond to events on many objects in a scene. This would effectively add a script interest management layer to OpenSim’s scripting interface. Where platforms provide differing interfaces to scripts we would also need to decide how scripts query the available interfaces or how they behave when interfaces are not available.

Overall a worthwhile trip, but not because of the conference. This Friday I’ll be talking at the online head conference about conferencing in Second Life which has the advantage of requiring no travel making marginal conferences like the Virtual Worlds Conference less risky to attend while allowing all of the serendipitous networking opportunities that make real life conferences worthwhile.

Last week I was invited to talk at JAOO Denmark. Originally a Java conference, JAOO is now a very broad software development conference covering everything from agile to language design to distributed systems.

The stand out talk on the first day was Gregor Hohpe‘s Programming the Cloud which enumerated some of the problems with building distributed systems without call stacks, transactions, promises, certainty or ordering constraints and then outlined some approaches to overcome them including looking at real life situations which also have to deal with the lack of distributed transactions. For example at Starbucks your coffee is made concurrently with your payment being taken and then problems are fixed up afterwards if you can’t pay, they can’t make the coffee or they get the order wrong. The throughput gained from optimistic concurrency is greater than the loss of having to fix things up, even if it means that sometimes you end up giving away free coffee.

Unfortunately I missed Lars Bak’s V8 keynote on Tuesday, but was really impressed by Successfully Applying REST by Stefan Tilkov which enumerated REST patterns and anti-patterns shining some light on the subtleties of a technology which initially seems straight forward but turns out to have some pot holes for the unwary.

The highlights on Wednesday were seeing Guy Steele and Dick Gabriel give their 50-in-50 talk again (which is still not available on-line, but one of the highlights is here) and seeing the new WeDo lego robotics platform for kids which will be available next summer. The most relevant talk was Test Driven Development, Take 2 by Erik Doernenburg which got me thinking about how to do dynamic mock objects in C++. My talk on embedding Mono in Second Life went down well and elicited some good questions, although as a fringe topic it wasn’t heavily attended.

Other highlights included Erik Meijer’s keynote on fundamentalist functional programming, Bill Venners talk on Scala, hearing Patrick Linskey conclude that the way to make Java scale is to use Scala or Erlang, James Copland reinventing OO, playing guitar at the jam session and hearing Erik suggest to Lars that we compile LSL to CIL and run it on V8 modified to capture thread state while Erik was spilling half bottles of Champagne over people and Lars was swaying and stumbling around the room.

At the recommendation of John and [Alice] (http://www.wonderlandblog.com/ “Wonderland”) I took a break from [Develop Online] (http://www.develop-conference.com/developconference/develop_online.shtml?x “Develop Online”) to listen to Jon Blow‘s talk at Games:Edu this week and was totally blown away.

Jon talked about whether games are poised to enter a golden age similar to films in the ‘30s, when they transitioned from visual spectacle to an art form capable of touching people emotionally. Currently many games are broken by the conflicts between the game play rewards and the needs of the story. The canonical example is Metal Gear Solid, which pauses all interactivity to deliver exposition, but even more nuanced games suffer from the lack of control over the framing of the story. A narrative is likely to be much less powerful if the protagonist is jumping around while another character opens their heart. Equally the illusion of interactivity is completely broken by a character that refuses to acknowledge the player’s actions by simply reeling off scripted dialog.

I wonder whether games too often sacrifice interactivity in the pursuit of realism. When you can simulate a city full of cars, the desire to populate it with people is almost overwhelming, but without solving the hard AI problem the only way to add people that say anything nuanced is to script them. The world seems more real, but adding scripted people to the center of the world compromises the interactivity that should be fundamental to a game. When we read a book we accept a lack of agency as we are empathizing with a character and following their journey through the narrative. When we’re in a game the story should be ours and the world should respond to our actions. There will be limits to our freedom, but placing scripted characters in the world rubs those limits in our face. Many forms of art touch us without having to realistically represent people. No one would mistake the people in Guernica for real people, but the work touches us and the image could be interpreted as a game environment without solving the hard AI problem. Maybe games should spend more time trying to be Guernica and less time trying to be The Godfather.