O' Air Canada, do you really want to separate families?

[This post was originally published on the Parentonomics blog at Forbes.com on 21st March 2012]

When a parenting blogger goes on vacation, there is always stuff to write about (click here for a taste). Having just spent 10 days with the family in Florida where, apparently, the temperature is a whole three degrees warmer than Toronto, travel will be a theme of my next few posts. More specifically, I'll be concentrating on the business end of the vacation scene.

And where best to start than the airlines. We have travelled on many different airlines. By far the most family friendly is Virgin. I recall, fondly, a trip in Australia where, half an hour into the flight, a flight attendant announced, "whose up for face paints?" where upon all of the children on the flight moved to the back of the aircraft and we didn't see them again until we had to land. You can't get better than that.

This time around, we chose Air Canada; Virgin don't fly between the US and Canada. Our motivation was simple: Air Canada have little screens on the back of the seats. Now we don't need those in these days of iPods and iPads to keep the kids entertained but there is that 30 minute period on take off and landing. More if there are delays on the ground. Apparently, while electronic devices pose a risk to safety, running an screen system to every single seat poses no risk! So we can happily plug children in for the entire flight as soon as we board. There is one wrinkle: they have to have ear buds for takeoff and landing because over the ear headphones pose some other, hard to imagine, risk. [Any airline people, please feel free to enlighten us on those risks in the comments.]

Departing Toronto Pearson (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But Air Canada had a surprise for us: you can't specify to be seated with your children. Well, at least not the way we booked our flight. Because we wanted to use some frequent flier points and to leverage a vacation package to Disney, I booked the flight on a third party site. This apparently put us into a cyber black hole as our five tickets could not be recognized as being 'together.' That meant we couldn't choose seats upon booking although that is quite common. That I could live with. But Air Canada allocated seats randomly. That meant all five of us were strewn over the aircraft. Our kids would be sitting separately next to other random people.

Now you might be thinking that my immediate reaction was horror. But not really. I thought, hmm, what a nice start to a vacation to have some other adult, by default, responsible for my children's happiness? Someone else to ask to take to the toilet, work out how to use the inflight entertainment, fill in the immigration forms, order a drink and to clean up said drink when it spilled on them during turbulence. Certainly a great start to the vacation for me. But I'm not sure how others would react to Air Canada doing this to them. And I also figured that this being school holidays, I might end up with some other random kid next to me!

So I called to see what could be done. Apparently, despite booking two months in advance: nothing. I was told that Air Canada didn't release seats for third party bookings until 24 hours before and I should call back then.

And I did. And what could they do? Almost nothing. Because the flight was booked out and everyone had been allocated seats. I say 'almost' because they could get three of us together. The remaining two would be many rows away. I was told that perhaps we could get a better seat allocation at the gate and I should try then.

So I did. But they couldn't change anything because -- and I am not making this up -- they not permitted to give seat assignments to parties with more than four people! Two adults and three kids was not a 'party' they wanted to encourage.

We boarded the plane and said goodbye to our eldest child and to each other. And then I found out where the three of us were sitting: the exit row. Ordinarily, that's great. But there were two problems. First, you can't legally sit kids in the exit row. Air Canada knew they were allocating seats to kids (they took their ages with the booking) but somehow had not told their seat allocation system about that important requirement. But, second, and more importantly, the exit row did not have 'back of the seat' screens so the whole advantage of travelling on Air Canadawas gone. Suffice it to say, this then required everyone to board plane and then for the flight attendants to negotiate some trades. You can imagine that on a flight with families there weren't a lot of single adults or couples without kids who might fill the three exit row seats we had. But they did eventually find two elderly people who were happy to trade and operate the door in case of emergency provided the staff could find overhead compartment space for them. That led to more negotiations.

So what are we to make of all this? The sinister business expectation is that Air Canada don't want to encourage families or, more to the point, do not want to encourage families unless they book directly with Air Canada. For an upcoming trip, we booked directly and you can specify seats with everyone seated together. Air Canada, most likely, get a lower return from third party bookings and I guess this gives them a reason to push people onto their own site.

But think of the cost. Random travellers who book on their site may end up with random children sitting alone next to them. They end up misallocating children to exit rows causing costly delays and work for airline staff. The only winners are the families who book directly with Air Canada who can smugly watch the chaos ensue. That doesn't sound like great business strategy.

The less sinister explanation is that Air Canada have a very poorly executed booking and flight reservation system. Someone, somewhere forgot about families and deep in the code there is no way for Air Canada to sort out the mess. My bias is on incompetent planning rather than evil attempts at price discrimination in these matters.

And so what of the return leg of our flight? I didn't bother to try and get us seated together. We got one adult with our youngest which was good. And as I walked back to the very last row of the plane I saw a woman travelling with three very young children sitting in the exit row. I figured we'd be a little longer before we took off so I plugged in to watch some television on the seat back screen.

Unconventional Design Tips

The general advice for upstarting developers seem to be to focus on mechanics, building fast a prototype, getting the core game fun and and so. For instance CliffyB did so at GDC 2012. This is not bad per se, but it is really not the only way to make games and usually, and this is the issue, result in the same kind of experiences. So to create a counterweight to this, I decided to make my own list of design advice. Here goes:

Build top-down
Find some core mechanic of controlling and interacting with the game, be that sidescrolling shooter, point and click or whatnot and then focus on the big picture. What feelings should game create, what is the theme, what kind of message should the game get across? This means creating an overarching structure for the game first, and then when you start designing the mechanics, levels, etc you make sure that it goes along with this. By doing so you can design games that try and convey things not possible over shorter time spans. It lets you control build-up and emotional journey to a much greater degree.

Design and create chronologically
Try and see the development process as a very extended playthrough of the game. By designing and producing the initial level/area/etc first you get a better feel for the player's journey through the game. This make it easier to understand the how the holistic experience will play out, and it allows you to always base later levels/areas/etc upon what the player's frame of find (as it is formed by the previous experiences) is at that point.
Of course you can still go back and change things as needed, and this is often required later. But you want to stick with the chronological structure until as much as possible of the game is completed.

Do not care about fun
First of, despite what some might say, fun is a very specific word and leaves out many type of experiences. For instance very few people would call "Schindler's List" fun. Hence you should not use fun, unless you are specifically after creating a "fun time". A better word to use is "engaging" which can be used to describe the quality of anything depressing dramas and lighthearted comedies.
Second, what you want to care about are your high-level goals. The most vital part is that anything you add to the videogame serve these. If making them fun help this purpose, then by all means make them fun. But if you want the player to be part of a dark and disturbing journey, then fun is most likely not what you want to aim for.

Proper assets early
Art assets such as a graphics, music and sound effects are far more important than what some might argue. Not all videogame ideas can be properly evaluated by using simple blocks and beeps. What the player sees and hears has a great impact on how they can relate to the game. Sometimes mechanics that at first seem really crappy, can start to shine once higher quality assets are used. If you want the player to experience a story by moving through an environment, then you need to have the audio-visual feedback that immerse them in that.
This does not have to mean that full production quality assets are needed and it is not always easy to know when your prototype looks and sounds good enough. But if make sure to keep in mind that the underlying system is not everything, then that is one step in the right direction.

Diversity in the world, not game core
Do not think that everything you want to represent in the game needs to be inside the core mechanics. Instead, keep the mechanics simple and then let the world do the work in delivering a wider experience. For instance in Limbo, there are only a few core actions available for the player, yet the game keeps the activities varied and unique through out the game.
This is the hard way of designing games as you cannot simply extrapolate from a prototype, but the end result is a deep experience that is easy to get into.

Do it as short as possible
Do not make a game that is the best value possible. Let the videogames say what you want it to and then STOP. Do not try and drag sections out for no real reason. In the end what you want to create is a product that delivers your high level purposes in the best way possible.
This is also a legit business choice as you do not compete with other time consuming videogames. If your game does not take up huge amounts of time and yet gives the player a coherent and fulfilling experience, there is a bigger chance they will have time and motivation to give it a go. I would also rather see a world with many smaller interesting experiences than long ones whose only motive is to eat as much time as they possibly can.


There you go! Now of course these tips are not some ancient wisdom that lead you to the path of glory. One must always try and figure out the best process for the type of game you want to make. But what I hope this does is to show any aspiring developer that there is more ways to create videogames than the conventional ones. At Frictional Games we pretty much follow the above and have managed stay in business for over five years and are currently financially stable. So what I just said are tips that have been tried in practice.


If you know any other tips that goes against the "fun mechanics are everything" line of thinking, do share!

We are hiring: Script Programmer wanted!

Yet again we find ourselves in the need for adding a new member to our company. We are looking for a script programer with C++ syntax styled script language experience. We specifically use Angel Script, but experience with for example C#, UnrealScript, Javascript or other similar high level languages will do fine. The initial employment will be for a 6-8 months project, but can possibly be extended to an ongoing employment.

Your work with us will consist of writing the base implementation of the designed gameplay for each "level" in a game. This includes going over the design documentation, plan the basic needs and implement it, while keeping in mind that the script must be able to be easily improved, tweaked and added to. In addition you need to be creative and realize things missing/improvements that can be made to the script implementation. This can include going as far as having a completely new idea. It is also crucial to be able to imagine how the player might tackle each situation and add in the support needed to let the player continue the game in any manner that makes sense.

Experience with level editing, sound, music and effects implementation is a bonus attribute as you realize and understand the importance of timing and multi-step events needed to make the player interaction interesting and engaging.

Either you live in Sweden or you live in a time-zone nearby. Swedes are welcome as employees or contractors, if you are living abroad you need to be a contractor capable of invoicing. You'll be working from home, at a distance to the rest of the team (whom also works from home).

If interested in the position, please take the time to consider the following situation and respond to it by discussing problems and how to design it for an Amnesia styled type of game.

"To open a door, the player must tie a rope between it and a heavy create, and then push the crate into a hole."

Send CV, response to the situation and any additional links to previous work (as in videos, games or demos that clearly demonstrate your part in it): jobs [at] frictionalgames [dot] com.

We are mainly interested in script programing that deals with the player's interaction in the game world, the events that are triggered and the overall game experience that the script conveys to the player. This position is as much, or even more, creative as it is a need to be logical and structured. Please do not send any large attachments to our email address, instead upload and give links for downloading.

The Rise of the Creative Parent

[This post was originally published in the Parentonomics blog at Forbes.com on March 9, 2012]

Creativity advocates are everywhere. From the workplace to government and to our kids learning. On the last point, if you have missed it you'll want to watch this talk by Sir Ken Robinson (the most watched TED talk of all time).

But what about parenting? We hear all the time about parenting styles. There is tiger parenting, a French-style of parenting, free-range parenting and more recently, a more laid back approach advocated by the likes of Bryan Caplan and Tom Hodgkinson. But where is the creative parent?

I'm a professor in strategic management and to me there are two core managerial tasks in parenting. The first is managing logistics: how to you get all of the stuff done that you need to get done without losing a child? But the second is something requiring more: how do you stay ahead of the game? Your kids are moving targets both literally and also in their development. Just as you find you have got some behavior down right, another problem emerges. Kids are like evolving viruses building up immunity to past tactics.

As it is Friday afternoon, and as this blog is economically-focussed, let me focus on one particular aspect of creative parenting: how we punish our children for 'bad' behavior? This, it turns out, is a very difficult issue. Many parents have a time out corner. We did this and it worked well with our first born for all manner of indiscretions. Our second born son, however, was exiled to the corner but didn't take it in the way we hoped. What we want is despair and outrage. What we got in his case was no reaction. He would go to the corner. Sometimes we would hear him singing, "I'm in the corner, I'm in the corner." It was a merry ditty but it often triggered discussions as to whether the whole corner thing was working. It turned out that it was. The behavior was usually not repeated.

But corners are your stock standard, generic punishment. To be sure, they have symbolic value. But they don't really stick in the mind. We became a bit more creative when it came to punishments over the "failure to share a toy" statute. In that case, we not only confiscated the toy in question, we also put it out of reach but on display for the child to be reminded of its existence. The best thing about this one was that the punishment was associate with a specific transgression. A potential non-sharing child need only cast their glance to the confiscation shelf to think twice.

Image via Wikipedia

The real punishment for the creative parent is, of course, the ironic punishment. I once forced my son to take a Disney Princesses lunch box to school because he kept on losing his normal lunch box. The idea was that the 'pink' would remind him to bring it home and to look for past lost ones. It worked very quickly. That said, when I tried the same idea for lost clothing he tried to argue his way out of it saying it would be unfair on the other kids at school. Why? Because they would tease him and then they would get in trouble! I appreciated the effort there but was unrelenting.

In an extremely creative and ironic punishment, Vincent Janoski (a GeekDad) punished his child who had overplayed computer games but setting him a puzzle to free himself from what appeared to be jail. And for older kids, I'm not sure this has been tried, you could use strategies like this one suggest in the comic, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.

To be sure, being creative in punishments takes some effort but when you get it right it can be quite pleasurable (albiet in a somewhat sadistic way). Moreover, if it has an upside you are more likely to follow through on it which helps you in setting and keeping to boundaries.

Nonetheless, if all that is too taxing, one strategy I have been able to get away with -- especially when behavior needs a quick correction (such as loud noise, slow dressing or sibling disputes) is to close my eyes and shout out "I'm thinking of a punishment and if you don't ____ I will enact it." The beauty of this is that it taps your children's own creativity in thinking what I might be thinking. And let's face it, they have a far better imagination than I have. In that way, I both outsource punishment management as well as encourage creativity. A win-win.

Naming iPads and naming babies

[This post originally appeared on Forbes on 7 March 2012]

Apple has announced its new iPad. It is a significant upgrade over the iPad 2 with a new display, faster wireless broadband and more power. But the biggest surprise was that Apple couldn't find a name for their new baby. We had all got used to this with the iPhone that spawned newer siblings, iPhone 3G, 3Gs, 4 and 4S. Even the iPad went to iPad 2. But for the third incarnationApple couldn't bring itself to create a new name. So there was no "iPad 3" or iPad HD" or anything like it. Just the "new iPad" which now sits a little awkwardly next to the "iPad 2" which will remain on the market as the cheaper option.

I must admit that I felt for Apple's marketing team as they opted for the no name option. Choosing a name for things is hard. Think about what goes into the choice of a name for a baby. Many couples struggle with it. A baby's name stays with them for the rest of their lives. Some years ago, I had some thoughts on this especially with regard to my own name 'Joshua' that went from obscurity to popularity in my lifetime. But let's review the evidence on how much this matters.

In Freakonomics, Steve Levitt and Stephen Dubner devoted a whole chapter to the issue of what baby name choices mean. The answer: apparently, a surprising lot. The name you choose for your child might be correlated with later success in life. I was particularly pleased with this as our youngest child had one of the names, if chosen in the last few years, was predicted as associated with future success. Of course, we hadn't read the book when choosing that name so if the cause of this association is some hidden characteristic it reveals about us as parents, that will still be there. But, even if we had read the book, it may be that the name itself generates success; although I suspect that isn't the case. Nonetheless, if you are a parent, why take the risk? Get a copy of Freakonomics and pick one of the names of the future winners in society.

The names identified by Freakonomics were not currently popular ones. The theory is that families at the high wealth end of social life choose names that are more unique and their example causes a trickle down to the rest of society; creating a popular name. Of course, that database is based on California and it may have its own peculiarities. That said, you can see how these names are performing here.

So when it comes to naming children, parents rightly agonise. It is possibly easier with a first child. You get a short-list, rule out the bad ones (e.g., ones that might quickly become a worrying nickname or might be hard to pronounce) and usually one remains. But then what do you do when you have more children? Unless you are George Foreman, you usually want them to have different names. But you gave Child No.1 the good name. If Child No.2 is of another gender, you may be OK. But by the time Child No.3 rocks around what are you supposed to do? Moreover, you have had to scramble for middle names and so there just isn't much left. And it is not like people are inventing new names all the time. I've known parents to wait weeks to commit to a name for those later children; until the authorities required it for the official birth certificate.

When it comes to products, names can make or break it. We all suspected that Apple had trouble getting to the name "iPad" in the first place but that did work out. iPhone was an obvious name except that it was already owned by Cisco and Apple had to buy the rights. (Actually, that is still an ongoing issue with the iPad). But anyone knows that numbering is just unsustainable. I like to number my children -- 1, 2 and 3 -- but I knew there was an end to it. With new technology, that isn't the case. Moreover, an iPad is much more exciting than an iPad 1 but the difference between 2 and 3 is less. It is what economists might call "the law of diminishing returns" if they hadn't already used it for production costs.

So as people rail against Apple for breaking out of the iPad naming cycle and sticking to the one name, have a heart. Choosing names can be tough. You don't want to do it unless you really have to.

New Parentonomics Blog

So I was asked and accepted an offer to write a regular blog over at Forbes.com (specifically, under the ForbesWoman sub-brand). The blog is tagged Parentonomics and can be accessed and followed here. Now that doesn't mean I'll be abandoning this blog but there will be a 5 day gap in posting. The good news is that posts should be more regular than they have been of late.

There are two posts up now:

• One on naming iPads and naming babies
• Another on The Rise of the Creative Parent

They are familiar territory for regular readers here but in a more 'Forbes' style. My intension is to start branching out into a greater variety of parenting problems -- particularly concerning teenagers as I now have one.

In the meantime, if you want to know when new posts go up, either follow the blog directly on Forbes (you need only click one button). Or alternatively, I'll post links at twitter.com/parentonomics.

Leap day!

Today is February 29th. Given that it comes only once every four years, that would make it a rare birthday. But it is even rarer. As Andrew Leigh and I discovered in a paper just published in the Economic Record, the birthrate on this day is about 10% lower than if it was an ordinary Wednesday. Why? Parents like to move their children’s birthdays off days like this and on to something more regular. Of course, if today was a Friday they might get some resistance from their doctors who don’t want those births pushed on to the weekend.