Author: martin.angelov

This semester, I want to focus on modeling a 3D character from 2D concept art. I specifically mention “from 2D concept art” because translating a flat design into a three-dimensional model presents unique challenges—proportions, perspective, and maintaining the stylistic choices of the design which might not translate well in a three-dimensional space. 

After abundant research (a dive into YouTube search for video tutorials), I found the following tutorials and insights useful: 

Creating a Character Turnaround from a Concept Piece – This one goes the simple route of creating a character turn-around by first drawing half of the front piece and then duplicating it so the front would be symmetrical, then copying it in order to do the back-side of the character, after which the side-view is made. While the art was solid it did not give much impression of actual rotation in a 3D space, which, for experienced modellers (of which I am not) might not be an issue. The character design was also incredibly detailed, which of course serves its own challenges.

Another tutorial, more advanced one, for a simpler character concept (How I Make Character TURNAROUNDS and Sheets!) emphasizes the importance of keeping the process simple, as well as well-structured, by thinking about the anatomy of the design and using guiding lines to remain consistent in all the angles – front, back, profile and (!) ¾ view. 

The most useful video I found and which I will use to reference primarily my process was this one: Character Turnarounds: like a Pro! Photoshop Timeline

For the purpose of creating a full turnaround, the animator stresses the need to make 8 individual poses of every single angle the character would be turning in (or 5 in case the design is symmetrical, in which case the different angle poses could be duplicated). This animator, interestingly, started with the ¾ pose and began from there. This, to me, seems to be the most logical step. He states he did that, because it is the main pose in most animated scene where the characters have to both interact with each other and show the majority of their face to the audience. To me, however, it makes even more sense, because the ¾ view is where you get the most context for the shape of the features and the angles and curves of the body. A front view is far too flat, and a side view, while providing information on which parts jut out and which are concave, loses information in regards to the over-all design. After the ¾ is done, the neck is chosen as the pivotal axis on which the character is to revolve (two guides along both lines of the neck and one deadcenter) with additional guides at the outer-most extremities – top of the head, feet, shoulders, waist, chin and mouth, which keeps the proportions in check. Interestingly, the pelvis tilt is different for the front and back ¾ views – which means that the two could not be reversed, as could be done for the front view and the side view. Because of the way the pelvis tilts, it is either tilting upward (in the backview) or upward (in the front view). 

The animator also stresses a key difference between designing for 3D and 2D. In 2D animation, artists often use “cheats”—like Mickey Mouse’s shifting ears, which change position depending on the angle to maintain readability. When translated, the model often looks weird and unnatural. THis can be circumvented by “cheating” the model (automorphing) depending on the angle it is being viewed at, as was done for these two models: https://x.com/CG_Orange_eng/status/1482422057933565953 and https://x.com/chompotron/status/1481553948721180677 . 

But that would be a further blogpost all on its own. 

Now that I’ve gathered these insights, my next task is to select a 2D concept art of a character and create a turnaround sheet before moving into 3D modeling.

Immersion and appeal are two critical factors that contribute to the success and enjoyment of video games. Immersion, the feeling of being deeply absorbed in a game’s world, is often cited as a key element of player experience. Similarly, appeal—the attractiveness and likability of a game—plays a significant role in whether players choose to engage with a game in the first place and continue playing it over time. While both factors are widely recognized as important, their relationship has not been thoroughly explored. The paper “The interplay between immersion and appeal in video games” by Georgios Christou delves into the connection between immersion and appeal, drawing insights from a study, examining these factors across two popular games: World of Warcraft (WoW), a Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG), and Half-Life, a First-Person Shooter (FPS).

Immersion is often described as the ability of a game to draw players into its world, creating a sense of presence and engagement. This feeling of being absorbed in a game is a major contributor to player enjoyment and is frequently cited as a key factor in the success of games like WoW and Half-Life. Appeal, on the other hand, is what initially attracts players to a game. It encompasses factors such as visual attractiveness, likability, and the overall impression a game makes on potential players. Without appeal, players may never even start playing a game, let alone become immersed in it.

The study in the paper aimed to investigate the relationship between immersion and appeal across two different game genres and two categories of players: those with prior experience playing the game and those without. The games chosen for the study were WoW, an MMORPG with a focus on long-term player retention, and Half-Life, an FPS with a linear narrative and a clear endpoint.

Participants were divided into four groups: inexperienced and experienced players of WoW, and inexperienced and experienced players of Half-Life.

Inexperienced players were defined as those who had never played the game before, while experienced players were those who had either completed Half-Life or reached the maximum level in WoW. Participants were asked to play the game for a set period and then complete questionnaires measuring their perception of the game’s appeal and their level of immersion.

The study revealed several important insights into the relationship between immersion and appeal:

The results showed a significant positive correlation between immersion and appeal across both games and player groups. Players who found a game appealing were also more likely to report higher levels of immersion, and vice versa. This suggests that these two factors are deeply interconnected, with one influencing the other.

The study found that WoW players reported higher levels of both immersion and appeal compared to Half-Life players. This could be due to the nature of WoW as an MMORPG, which offers a persistent world, social interactions, and long-term goals, all of which may enhance immersion and appeal. In contrast, Half-Life’s linear narrative and first-person perspective may limit its ability to engage players in the same way.

For inexperienced players, the initial appeal of a game played a significant role in their overall experience. Players who found WoW appealing from the start also reported higher levels of immersion, while those who were less impressed with Half-Life were less likely to become immersed. This highlights the importance of creating a strong first impression to draw players in and keep them engaged.

Interestingly, the study found no significant difference in immersion or appeal between inexperienced and experienced players. This suggests that a player’s initial impression of a game may have a lasting impact on their experience, regardless of how much time they spend playing it.

The findings of this study have important implications for game designers; first, they underscore the importance of creating games that are both visually appealing and immersive. Designers should focus on crafting engaging worlds, compelling narratives, and intuitive gameplay mechanics to capture players’ attention and keep them invested.

Second, the study highlights the role of first impressions in shaping player experience. Games that fail to make a strong initial impact may struggle to retain players, even if they offer deep and immersive gameplay later on. This is particularly relevant for MMORPGs like WoW, where player retention is crucial for long-term success.

The strong correlation between immersion and appeal suggests that these two factors should be considered together when designing and evaluating games. By understanding how they influence each other, designers can create more engaging and enjoyable experiences for players. Immersion and appeal are two sides of the same coin, both playing a vital role in the success of video games. This study demonstrates that these factors are deeply interconnected, with appeal driving immersion and vice versa.

By focusing on creating games that are both attractive and engaging, designers can captivate players from the very beginning and keep them coming back for more.

On the topic of good design, it made me consider the importance of appeal in character, especially animal designs, in games, as well as other media franchises. To that end, I found the article by Alex Daud Briggs for gamerbraves.com, named “The Importance of Good Monster Design In Pokemon, Digimon and Other Games”.

Monster design is a cornerstone of many beloved video game franchises, from Pokémon and Digimon to Final Fantasy and Shin Megami Tensei. These creatures are more than just enemies or collectibles—they are the heart and soul of their respective worlds, shaping the tone, identity, and emotional connection players have with the games. This article explores how iconic franchises use monster design to create memorable experiences and why these designs are so crucial to the success of RPGs and monster-collecting games.

As the biggest media franchise in the world, Pokémon has set a high standard for monster design. Overseen by artist Ken Sugimori, Pokémon designs are intentionally crafted to be approachable and memorable. Sugimori emphasizes the importance of balance, often adding “uncool” or quirky elements to make creatures stand out. For example, Oshawott, an otter-like Pokémon, has three freckles on its cheeks. While removing them might make Oshawott cuter, the freckles add a unique touch that makes the design more memorable. This approach reflects the role of Pokémon in their universe: they are meant to feel like natural, everyday animals with exaggerated, cartoonish features. By taking a simple theme—like an otter using a shell as a weapon—and amplifying it, Pokémon designs feel both unique and grounded in their world. This balance of familiarity and creativity has helped Pokémon remain a cultural phenomenon for decades.

In contrast to Pokémon’s friendly and approachable designs, Digimon takes a darker, more surreal approach. Designed primarily by Kenji Watanabe, Digimon range from cute mascot-like creatures to humanoid warriors and grotesque demons. Inspired by 90s American comics, Digimon designs often feature belts, knives, tattoos, and guns, giving them a distinct edge.

One standout example is Vademon, a Digimon based on 50s-style space aliens. Its giant brain-like head, wiry body, and beefy arms make it both bizarre and unforgettable. This design philosophy aligns with the Digimon universe, where these creatures are intelligent beings capable of speech, higher thinking, and even creating technology. The use of weapons and armor reinforces their identity as more than just wild animals—they are complex, dangerous, and deeply integrated into their world.

Monster design isn’t limited to monster-collecting games. Many RPGs use their bestiaries to establish the tone and identity of their worlds. For example, Dragon Quest’s iconic Slimes, with their cartoonish smiles, set the stage for a lighthearted adventure, while Final Fantasy’s larger-than-life beasts like Chocobos and Cactuars emphasize the epic fantasy elements of the series.

The upcoming Final Fantasy XVI is doubling down on this tradition by spotlighting summons—recurring creatures that embody the grandeur and drama of the franchise. Similarly, Shin Megami Tensei and Yo-kai Watch draw on mythology and pop culture to create monsters that feel both familiar and fresh. These designs not only enhance the gameplay but also help players connect with the world and its lore.
Why Monster Design Matters. At its core, good monster design is about creating a lasting impression. Whether it’s the quirky charm of a Pokémon, the edgy intensity of a Digimon, or the mythical grandeur of a Final Fantasy summon, these creatures define the tone and identity of their games. They are the constant elements that tie together different entries in a series, providing a sense of continuity and nostalgia for long-time fans.

Moreover, monsters are often the first thing players encounter in a game, setting the stage for the adventure ahead. A well-designed monster can evoke emotions, tell a story, and immerse players in the world. In games like Pokémon and Digimon, where the monsters are the main attraction, their designs are even more critical. They need to be visually appealing, thematically consistent, and memorable enough to stand out in a crowded field of competitors.

From Pokémon’s balanced cuteness to Digimon’s surreal edge, monster design plays a pivotal role in shaping the identity and success of video game franchises. These creatures are more than just pixels on a screen—they are the heart of the worlds they inhabit, the companions on our journeys, and the adversaries that challenge us. As games continue to evolve, the importance of good monster design remains constant.

For this paper I drew information from “Caring for a companion as a form of self-care. Exploring the design space for irritating companion technologies for mental health” by Jordi Tost, Rahel Flechtner, Rahel Maué. It deals with the problematic of creating assistive technology for people with Social Anxiety Disorder, which would provide them with meaningful companionship and support.

Recent research explores the potential of companion technologies to address this challenge. Unlike traditional mental health apps that focus on task-driven routines, such as journaling or meditation, companion technologies aim to evoke empathy and emotional responses. However, overcoming anxiety disorders often requires stepping out of one’s comfort zone. This is where the concept of positive irritation comes into play: “Nevertheless, considering that anxiety disorders can only be overcome by gradually expanding one’s comfort zone, these companions need to be more irritating and confrontational. We argue that there is a need for irritating qualities of user experience that support the disruption of established patterns of behaviour and thought. With this, we propose that both empathetic and irritating dimensions of user experience are crucial in supporting individuals coping with SAD because they can leverage behaviour change and support social inclusion.”

Positive irritation refers to intentionally designed interactions that disrupt established patterns of behavior and thought. While empathy and emotional connection are crucial, irritation can serve as a catalyst for perspective change and personal growth. For individuals with SAD, this means gradually expanding their comfort zone through small, manageable challenges.

The idea of integrating irritating qualities into companion technologies is inspired by frameworks from psychology and human-computer interaction (HCI). For example, the Tamagotchi, a virtual pet that demands care, represents a counterpoint to traditional assistive technologies. Instead of serving the user, the Tamagotchi requires the user to care for it, fostering a sense of responsibility and emotional attachment. This dynamic shifts the relationship from “technology assisting people” to “people caring for technology,” which can enhance self-compassion and well-being.

At the heart of this approach is the metaphor of caring for the companion as a form of self-care. By nurturing a virtual companion, users learn to care for themselves. This reciprocal relationship integrates the companion into daily routines, creating opportunities for emotional growth and social inclusion.

The metaphor operates on three levels:

Connection with the Companion: Building emotional bonds through meaningful interactions.

Connection with Oneself: Encouraging users to reflect on their needs and resources.

Connection with the Social Environment: Promoting inclusion by bridging the gap between the digital and physical worlds.

To operationalize this metaphor, researchers propose eight principles for designing companion technologies that foster positive irritation:

Metaphorical Design: Using metaphors to give the companion a unique personality and story. For example, the companion could be designed as a friendly ghost or an externalization of the user’s anxiety, helping users reframe their mental models.

Strangeness: Incorporating unexpected behaviors to evoke curiosity and wonder. Strangeness can make the companion feel more alive and relatable, especially for individuals who feel “strange” themselves.

Reciprocity: Creating a give-and-take relationship where both the user and the companion care for each other. This dynamic promotes a sense of teamwork and shared control.

Synchronicity of Needs: Aligning the companion’s needs with the user’s emotional state. For instance, if the user feels anxious, the companion might exhibit similar emotions, encouraging the user to address their own feelings.

Adaptability and Careful Integration: Tailoring interactions to the user’s individual needs and context. The companion should balance proactivity with respect for the user’s boundaries.

Provocation and Confrontation: Using warm-hearted teasing or unexpected behaviors to challenge negative thought patterns. This principle draws from provocative therapy, where humor and confrontation are used to reframe perspectives.

Humour and Irony: Creating a light-hearted atmosphere through playful interactions. Humor can disrupt harmful thinking patterns and make self-care feel less daunting.

Embodied Experience: Integrating the companion into the user’s physical environment to enhance emotional connection. For example, the companion could respond to real-world stimuli, such as the user’s movements or surroundings.

While the potential of irritating companion technologies is promising, there are significant challenges to address. For instance, what one user finds humorous or motivating, another might perceive as intrusive or triggering. This highlights the need for careful adaptation to individual preferences and sensitivities.

Additionally, the use of generative AI in companion technologies raises ethical concerns. While AI can facilitate dynamic and personalized interactions, it also risks generating harmful or inappropriate content. Future research must explore how to model complex nuances, such as humor and provocation, in a way that aligns with users’ psychological needs.

Companion technologies for mental health represent a new frontier in HCI and psychology. By combining empathy with positive irritation, these technologies can support individuals with SAD in overcoming anxiety and expanding their comfort zones. The metaphor of caring for the companion as self-care and the accompanying principles provide a framework for designing meaningful and transformative interactions.

As technology continues to evolve, so too does the potential for innovative approaches to mental health care. By embracing the power of irritation, one can create companions that not only provide support but also inspire growth, resilience, and connection.

For this post, I drew the information from the paper “A Study on the Scalability of Design Content Using Pixel Art” by Qianqian Jiang and Jeanhun Chung.

Pixel art, a distinctive and nostalgic art form, has carved out a unique niche in the world of digital and traditional art. Its origins can be traced back to the limitations of early computer technology, where low-resolution displays and restricted color palettes forced artists to work within tight constraints. However, what began as a technical necessity has evolved into a beloved artistic style, celebrated for its retro charm and creative potential.

The pixel art style emerged in the 1960s as a direct result of the limitations of early computer graphics. With low-resolution screens and limited color options, artists were forced to create images using small, blocky pixels.

“In the early stages of pixel art’s development, technical limitations resulted in artists being able to only use black and white pixels or limited colors to shape image elements. This creative method initially formed the basis of pixel art. With the gradual maturity of technology, although the high-resolution and rich colors of images become possible, pixel art has been inherited and developed because of its unique visual charm and retro feelings.”

These constraints, however, gave birth to a unique aesthetic that would later become synonymous with retro gaming and digital art. Interestingly, the roots of pixel art can be traced even further back to traditional art forms such as cross-stitch and mosaic art. These crafts, which rely on small, discrete units to create larger images, share a striking resemblance to the pixelated visuals of early computer graphics. This connection underscores the deep historical origins of pixel art and its ties to human creativity across different mediums.

The development of pixel art can be divided into several key stages, each marked by advancements in technology and shifts in artistic expression: in its early days, pixel art was characterized by stark black-and-white images or limited color palettes, often using no more than 256 colors. Games like “Super Mario Bros” epitomized this 8-bit style, with its simplified shapes, sharp edges, and abstract designs. Despite these limitations, early pixel artists managed to create iconic and enduring works that continue to resonate with audiences today.

As technology advanced, so did the possibilities for pixel art. The introduction of isometric pixel art, as seen in games like “SimCity 2000”, allowed artists to create the illusion of depth and dimension on a 2D plane. This style, characterized by its 45-degree angles and equal proportions, added a new layer of complexity to pixel art. Meanwhile, the rise of voxel art, popularized by games like Minecraft, brought pixel art into the third dimension, using 3D pixel blocks to create intricate and modular structures.

In the 21st century, pixel art has continued to evolve, embracing high-definition techniques while retaining its core aesthetic. HD pixel art, for example, uses larger canvases and richer color palettes to create detailed and textured images, all while maintaining the clarity and charm of individual pixels. This fusion of traditional pixel art principles with modern technology has allowed the style to remain relevant and adaptable in an ever-changing digital landscape.

Today, pixel art has transcended its origins in gaming and computer graphics, finding applications in a wide range of design industries. Its unique aesthetic—marked by pixelated visuals, jagged edges, and matrix arrangements—has made it a popular choice for everything from fashion to environmental design.

In the world of fashion and accessories, pixel art has been embraced for its retro appeal and bold geometric patterns. Brands like APM Monaco have incorporated pixel art into their jewelry designs, using sharp contrasts and simple shapes to create pieces that are both modern and nostalgic. Similarly, clothing designs featuring pixelated game characters or patterns evoke the golden age of video games while appealing to contemporary tastes.

Pixel art has also made its mark in environmental design, where its modular and geometric qualities lend themselves to innovative architectural and interior projects. For example, the pixelated dome restaurant in Oman uses reflective glass and concave-convex shapes to create a dynamic and interactive space. In France, an apartment building in Nanterre features a facade designed with pixel block color contrasts, transforming the structure into a visually striking pixel sculpture.

In web design, pixel art’s bright colors, retro fonts, and dynamic effects have been used to create engaging and interactive user experiences. Websites like Piskel and Habitica incorporate pixel art into their interfaces, using it to enhance usability and evoke a sense of nostalgia. These applications demonstrate the versatility of pixel art as a visual language, capable of conveying both functionality and emotion.

As technology continues to advance, the potential for pixel art seems limitless. With the rise of new media and digital tools, artists and designers have more opportunities than ever to experiment with and expand upon the pixel art style. From 16-bit and 32-bit styles to block art and pixel puzzle styles, the diversity of pixel art sub-styles reflects the ongoing fusion of technology and creativity.

Pixel art’s enduring appeal lies in its ability to evoke nostalgia while remaining adaptable to modern trends. Its simplicity and clarity make it accessible, while its potential for complexity and innovation ensures its continued relevance. For designers and artists, mastering pixel art offers a unique way to connect with audiences, blending the past and present in visually compelling ways. Pixel art is more than just a relic of early computer technology—it is a vibrant and evolving art form with deep historical roots and boundless creative potential.

In the ever-evolving landscape of education and motivation, the concepts of gamification and ludicization have emerged as powerful tools to enhance engagement, learning, and behavior change. While both approaches emphasize playful experiences to support pedagogical and motivational goals, they differ significantly in their mechanics and underlying philosophies. Drawing from Qi Zhang’s insightful paper, “Investigating the Effects of Gamification and Ludicization on Learning Achievement and Motivation: An Empirical Study Employing Kahoot! and Habitica,” this blog post delves into the nuances of these two concepts, their differences, and their applications in real-world scenarios.

Gamification is a well-known approach that integrates game-like elements—such as points, badges, leaderboards, and challenges—into non-game contexts to motivate and engage participants. The term itself derives from the Latin word “facere,” meaning “to make,” which underscores its focus on creating game-like experiences within existing frameworks. Gamification is often described as an essentialist approach, as it enables participants to enjoy a ludic (playful) phenomenon by simulating real-world contexts.
For example, platforms like Kahoot! use gamification to transform traditional quizzes into interactive, competitive experiences. By incorporating elements like timed questions, scoring systems, and leaderboards, Kahoot! motivates learners to engage more deeply with the material. The simulation of real-world contexts—such as competition and achievement—encourages participants to immerse themselves in the activity, fostering both learning and motivation.

In contrast, ludicization takes a different approach to playful engagement. The term combines “ludus” (Latin for “game” or “play”) with “-icization,” which emphasizes the transformation of a reference situation into an idealized, playful experience. Unlike gamification, which focuses on making activities game-like, ludicization highlights the participants’ willingness to engage in playful experiences by metaphorizing their desired behaviors into imaginary meanings (Sanchez et al., 2016).

Ludicization simulates reference situations through analogical relationships between target activities and virtual ideas. For instance, Habitica—a habit-tracking app—transforms mundane tasks like exercising or completing chores into a role-playing game. Users create avatars, earn rewards, and battle monsters by completing real-life tasks. This metaphorical approach encourages participants to view their daily activities through the lens of an imaginative narrative, making the experience more engaging and meaningful.

While both gamification and ludicization aim to enhance engagement through playful experiences, they differ in their underlying mechanics and goals:

Gamification simulates real-world contexts to promote involvement. For example, a leaderboard in a classroom setting mirrors real-world competition, motivating students to perform better. On the other hand, ludicization uses metaphorical relationships to transform activities into playful, imaginary scenarios. Habitica’s use of avatars and monsters is a prime example of this metaphorical approach.

Gamification focuses on the action of making activities game-like, often through extrinsic motivators like points and badges. Ludicization, however, emphasizes the transformation of the activity itself, creating an idealized, playful version of the experience.

Gamification aligns activities with real-world contexts, making them more relatable and practical. Ludicization, in contrast, creates imaginary contexts that allow participants to explore idealized scenarios without real-world consequences.

The growing interest in gamification and ludicization has led to their application in diverse fields, from education to health and wellness. For instance, gamification has been used to spread awareness about thyroid cancer through purpose-designed games (de Oliviera, de Figueiredo, & Rodrigues, 2024). These games simulate real-world scenarios, educating players about the disease while engaging them in a competitive or collaborative experience.

Similarly, ludicization has been employed to motivate individuals with intellectual disabilities to engage in physical activities (Mooney, 2022). By transforming exercise routines into playful, imaginative experiences, ludicization makes physical activity more accessible and enjoyable for this demographic.

Both approaches tap into fundamental human desires for play, achievement, and meaning. Gamification leverages extrinsic motivators like competition and rewards to drive engagement, while ludicization appeals to intrinsic motivators by creating meaningful, imaginative experiences. Together, they offer a versatile toolkit for educators, designers, and motivators to create engaging and effective experiences.

Gamification and ludicization represent two distinct yet complementary approaches to enhancing engagement and motivation. While gamification focuses on making activities game-like through simulation and extrinsic rewards, ludicization transforms activities into idealized, playful experiences through metaphor and imagination. Both approaches have proven effective in diverse contexts, from education to health, and their continued exploration promises to unlock new possibilities for playful learning and engagement.

Hualong Yang and Dan Li, the authors of the paper „Understanding the dark side of gamification health management: A stress perspective“, investigate the behaviour and stress responses to participants in a person-environment fit, using the Chinese health management app „WеcChat Sports“. The findings of the paper are that, while utilization of gamification in healthcare contexts, does provide positive results, they are either not universal or they are not long-lasting. There are also privacy concern risks involved.

Concerning the non-universal appeal, a challenges and rewards system appears to be daunting to a certain group of people, in some cases those in need of the health support, are the ones who are revolted away from the whole system, whereas those who continue on using it for longer, are the goal-oriented, striving after achievement types, for whom the app is not designed.

„For example, with a health management app, some gamification characteristics may lead many users with health management needs to stop using the app, with only users who want to win game achievements and rewards continuing to us the app. This means that the role of the app cannot be fully played, which eventually leads to some users’ failure in health management.
Thus, gamification design may be a double-edged sword, and designers must consider the negative consequences as well as positive consequences of gamification design.“

The authors cite gamification-, or tech- rather, exhaustion as another reason for why participants would tire of the gamified health system. Constatly keeping up with rules and striving after achievements can be exhausting, especially in a technology-dominated world. The last thing you would want to do after a hard day at work on the computer and scrolling social media would be to spend more time at a device using social media elements for your health.

„An increasing number of users are abandoning gamification health management programs or becoming less involved in them. One possible reason is that gamification health management causes stress for users, which then exhausts them. Previous studies have noted that stress can lead to technological exhaustion (Cao et al., 2018b; Maier, Laumer, Weinert & Weitzel, 2015), which is an aversive, unconscious psychological response to stress that reflects the level of tiredness users feel when using technology (Lee, Son & Kim, 2016; Xiao & Mou, 2019). In gamification health management, technological exhaustion refers to users’ weariness and aversion to the gamification design, which leads to a decrease in users’ health management performance and perhaps makes them stop using their health management app. The integration of the game design and social media functions in health management apps may also lead to potential stressors (e.g., social overload and privacy invasion), which can lead to users’ technological exhaustion.“

The gamified aspect also provides a stress-factor, as the motivation for partaking in the rules of the game is to keep yourself under a constant state of suspense.

„That is, although applying gamification design and social media functions may enhance interaction and competition between users, the social media element of the app can make the gamification design become a strain for users, tiring users and leading to gamification exhaustion. In addition, the gamification design can increase the frequency of interaction and information sharing between users. This mutual circulation of information and data among users may lead to feelings of personal privacy invasion and social overload, which leads to the gamification design becoming a source of stress for users.“

There is also the element of privacy issues: in order to integrate a competitive aspect to the health app, one has to integrate a social leaderboard, which then inevitably has to share private user data regarding their activity history and current and past health status.

„In the field of health management, sharing of health-related information and data is an important privacy issue and the achievement mechanism of a gamification health management app may reveal information about the user’s health and personal behavior. The social media functions may also reveal the user’s health information in the app, thus possibly leading to invasion of the user’s privacy and personal life. Moreover, the competition and interaction mechanisms of gamification design strengthen the information flow and mutual attention between users. Friends and family members in the same social network pay special attention to the health of users, which will increase the frequency of communication on health issues. This may lead to the stressor of social overload of users. Thus, the social media element of gamification may increase the stressors that can be associated with gamification design, among which social overload and privacy invasion are the most likely negative effects in gamification health management.“

The ethics of tamagotchi was the last thing I thought I would ever read. But, after reading the full article – “Caring-About Virtual Pets: An Ethical Interpretation of Tamagotchi” by Annie O’Rourke — the parallel that can be drawn between the virtual world of the pets and the virtual world we live in today, both inside of the media vortex as well as through the as mentioned in the previous blog-post mobile games is a very interesting one.

Annie O’Rourke is concerned with the ethical aspect of the game: What does it mean to give conceptual life to a material object – a jumble of code in a double digit system encased in a plastic cocoon? And what does it mean when you care for that object as if it matters if it is hale and healthy until you grow bored of it and in the end discard it?

Much like Dormehl (writer for digitaltrends.com) posits, O’Rourke also states that the initial universal popularity with the toy was due to a certain digital ennui (my words) — a generation of people living in a “digitized” world with “broken-up” time and a “ feeling of individualized ineffectiveness” (original words). What better generation of consumers to spring this toy onto, but one comprised of people with little opportunity for agency and self-actualization who, when given the chance, jump at the first opportunity to get a simulacrum of the experience of caring for another being. For a certain period of time. Attached only until the novelty wears off, and to be discarded and forgotten the moment the dreaded drudgery of domestic routine rears its ugly head.

The ‘text’ of the game, O’Rourke states, is predicated on the fact that the perceived experience of nurturing is so startlingly simple it can be broken down into an algorithm which can be fit inside of a 1×1 screen. Feed, play with, punish, provide medical care. All an easily replicable cycle. The only reason the game succeeded from the onset, was because the “background” of its creation was an easily comprehensible and known one.

It is this familiarity and the willingness to “believe” that creates that attachment to the virtual pet. You have to buy the idea wholesale that this is a creature you care about and that you don’t want to die in order to engage with it and its “text”.

“Virtual Pets mean very little in themselves (as figures on a screeen), it is their narrativisation (primarily in the head of the user) which makes them become a ‘pet’ and forces a particular kind of behaviour.” (p.5)

She warns against taking the word of the marketing team advertising the game at face value, however — the same way that the connection with the game, the emotional one, which really believes in it, is forged, so is our perception of the world which can be manipulated by marketing forces: “It is worth staying with the marketed image of Tamagotchi for a while, for it is here that the connections to the ‘real’ world are most explicitly being forged. We have to be careful however, for marketing itself works in a similar way to the virtual. It creates and fixes the very market it is seeking to sell its product to. Like the virtual, it does not simply represent (and then satisfy) a consumer’s previously unfulfilled desires. These images actively shape and mediate how the object or text is received and experienced.” (p. 13)

It is thus to follow that the draw of the game and its infinitely spawn-able characters is predicated on the player playing along with and engaging with it and its text on the game’s turns. It helps if the behaviour and connections it is trying to foster are virtualizations of real world experiences, which can be recreated to a degree to which the appeal is in its realism, and but not so realistic as to lose that same appeal. The reason people grew bored was because the game became too realistic – the novelty wore off and it could not sustain the boring routine which already predisposed people to get rid of their actual pets.

As for the ethics? We are already living in a proto-virtual world, one in which we recreate simulated experiences of our daily lives: we meet up with our friends to play in virtual spaces, we roleplay characters who shoot down enemy forces on battlefields, and play out romances which follow the same structured destiny on each play-through. Anything which simulates the real world without examining it or challenging it is going to play on established harmful cliches, thereby rooting them even deeper into our cultural psyche.

In the case of the tamagotchi, O’Rourke states that we are learning new examples of care – ones in which that which is nurtured exists perpetually without agency or ability to change; in which it can be easily disposed of as soon as it becomes inconvenient: “In the mean-time our idea of what ‘care’, ‘response’ and ultimately ‘ethics’ are have been transformed, and it is a world which we all now inherit.” (p.20)

O’Rourke, Anne (1998). Caring about virtual perts: an ethical interpretation of Tamagotchi. University of Wollongong. Journal contribution. https://hdl.handle.net/10779/uow.27825507.v1

Or as I like to call it: topic pivot.

Tamagotchis, the virtual pets dangling off the keychains of all children, and young adults, and even adults in the 90’s and early aughts, were unassailable in their availability. And, perhaps puzzlingly, in their appeal. Those were pets who could barely interact with you, who died due to some cruel trick of their design, or who necessitated enough care that you’d have to pawn them off on someone else to take care of if you were going to be away for their routine feeding, just to keep them alive.

The reason I was reminded of this topic, is because of the influx of productivity and wellness apps, sprouted from the fertile (and oversaturated) soil of the mobile application landscape, which follow a similar principle of the tamagotchi: ever tried to keep hydrated by periodically watering a cute plant (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/plant-nanny-cute-water-tracker/id1424178757?correlationId=c8e80d94-93f8-4604-9c2b-d513332f745d), or trying to stay off your phone in order to maximize productivity by nursing an egg that wouldn’t hatch if you happened to check your phone (https://gethatch.app)? Luke Dormehl of digitaltrends.com makes the bold claim that the tamagotchi is actually that, which preceded the advent of the mobile phone; a device, which you carry around in your pocket, which notifies you constantly and demands you take time off your day to attend to it? By getting daily pings and reminders from those adorable little animated wellness-app characters, you’ve inevitably sucked yourself into the same void that consumed the pioneering Japanese businessmen, who cancelled meetings in order to feed their beloved digital pets, lest they die in their brief absence. (https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/642373/tamagotchi-history)

Whereas before the tamagotchi was the beloved pet which served no function other than to be born, procreate and die a digital death (of old age or neglect), now the thing being taken care of is not only the avatar, but vicariously through it, the “player” themself. Truly a symbiotic relationship. 

It doesn’t only stop with wellness, however.

Knitwear company Sheep Inc. pride themselves on their humane handling of merino sheep and their sustainable sweater production line. (https://sheepinc.com/pages/about-us). They are not only transparent about the chemical process of their sweater production, but also are invested in keeping their products wearable for years to come, with a “sweater clinic” they’ve set up for repair of their garmens. ( https://sheepinc.com/pages/the-knit-clinic). The buyer of the garments also gets to name the “sheep that produced the wool for their sweater” with the website even providing a tamagotchi-style game with an avatar of the sheep which lets them interact with it. (https://youtu.be/uq4Vi8PyBFM?t=1758) Adorable! But what would spur them on to make such a decision? 

It is a cool extra, but they could’ve easily stayed within the bounds of what is expected of sustainability reports – lie about the CO2 emissions you’ve offset to prove that your product is a net neutral to the environment, or, better yet, buy a Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) and wash your hands of the entire headache. (https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/3/23901236/apple-carbon-neutral-watch-report-supply-chain-emissions-transparency)  

And yet, in a bid for strengthening the idea in their consumers’ minds that they care and that you should care about where your wool comes from, they topped of the entire purchasing experience from them with a pixelated avatar of a sheep.

Do digital characters you get to take care of lessen the sting of picking up a new habit like the sugar that goes down with the pill? And if you didn’t care about sustainable wool production and knitwear made to last, would briefly interacting with a digital sheep really endear you to the cause? 

(As an aside: I am inclined to cast aspersions on how truly environmentally friendly Sheep Inc. could be, given the prevalence of AI-generated art on their webpage. AI-generated content is a useless sink of unfathomable amounts of resources (https://news.mit.edu/2025/explained-generative-ai-environmental-impact-0117) and I am waiting with baited breath for the popping of that particular bubble. But I digress.)

There is lot to be investigated psychologically as well as technologically around the idea of curating a mobile experience solely dedicated to impacting social and personal change via an avatar which serves as the catalyst for a process in which you not only nurture but are the one being nurtured. In which a digital sheep can inspire feelings of affection not only for it, but also for the idea of the well-being of animals.

The programming environments most commonly used for creative coding are Processing, P5.js, and vvvv. In this blog I’d like to explore each environment, and in so doing, provide examples for all that creative coding can encompass. 

The difference between Processing and P5.js is that processing’s language is based in java (though greatly simplified), whereas p5.js is in javascript with the key difference between the two being that the former is built primarily for independent applications, whereas the latter is made for the web. (cf. Geeksforgeeks 2024)  P5.js is meant to be used directly in the web browser. 

Fig. 1: Narrative 2.0 by Matthias Dittrich, a Processing sketch visualizing music. (src: https://www.matthiasdittrich.com/projekte/narratives/visualisation/index.html)

Processing was first released in 2001 as an open source project to teach programming with instantaneous visual feedback. It has since grown and has become a valuable tool with its own implementation, such as in the simplified programming language Ruby -(https://ruby-processing.github.io/about/)  or with the  general-purpose scripting language Clojure (https://github.com/rosado/clj-processing) It has also been connected to third party libraries for the purpose of accomplishing more complex tasks, such as drawing in 3D (http://py.kantel-chaos-team.de.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/13gr3d/), reading XML (https://contribs.processing.org/reference/XML.html), connecting to an Arduino (https://www.arduino.cc/education/visualization-with-arduino-and-processing/) and interfacing with other Application Programming Interfaces. (cf. Pearson 2011)

Fig. 2: Processing Interface

Fig. 3: Sketch created with p5.js (src: https://p5js.org/sketches/2174234/)

P5.js is a javascript library for creative coding available online under the URL https://editor.p5js.org/.  It could also be run locally by downloading their library. (https://p5js.org/download/) From the get-go it can interface with text, sound, video, and gain access of your camera. Like processing, it has a simplified syntax, which makes it easy to learn, lets you see in real time the changes in your code by visually displaying the manipulations in your code. (geeksforgeeks 2024) 

Fig. 4: p5.js Interface

Other free notable contestants for code-based creative coding programs are Context Free Art (https://www.contextfreeart.org/), OpenFrameworks (https://openframeworks.cc/download/), and Structure Synth (https://structuresynth.sourceforge.net/learn.php).

vvvv is a node-based creative coding framework as old as Processing – first created in 2002. Like Processing, it is used for data visualization, interaction-design and generative-design, with also added VR integration and machine learning. There are open-source libraries of nodes available for downloading to the software. The coding languages making up the nodes can be written in plain C# ir F#. vvvv calls their generative process “live-programming” – you can make realtime changes to the output by applying changes to the nodes. (TheGrayBook n.d.) As the main homepage of vvvv states: “There is no need to write any code, unless you really want to.” (Visual Programming n.d.) 

Fig. 5: vvvv Interface

Other node-based creative coding applications worth mentioning are Cables (https://cables.gl/), Isadora (https://troikatronix.com/), Max (https://cycling74.com/), Jitter (https://cycling74.com/products/jitter), Pure Data (https://puredata.info/), Touchdesigner (https://derivative.ca/), Vuo (https://vuo.org/), and NodeBox (https://www.nodebox.net/). 

References: 

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-java-and-javascript

https://www.visualprogramming.net

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/p5-js

https://thegraybook.vvvv.org/reference/getting-started/cc/introduction-for-creative-coders.html

Pearson, Matt: Generative Art. 2011