Is Time Fcuk a superflat? I'm going to have to answer yes. I wouldn't have picked up on most of the tropes or references made in game if it hadn't been for the tropes as tools site. Anyways, I'd say it's superflat because most of the tropes seemed to be used for comedic affect, without anything deeper waiting around the corner. Now, I'm not really one to define deepness (?) because I think that changes from person to person, but I'd have to say that if a reference is made, it should at least be as parody or to evoke emotion.
I'm perfectly fine with superflat in various forms of media, and it's really fun to have that aha! moment when playing a game or watching a tv show. Hell, I picked the mind screw trope, and an example was the ending of Mystery Team, which I love. And it's because of that aha! one shot style that I'd have to say that Time Fcuk is a superflat creation.
Now, piggybacking off that last thought, I'd have to say that yeah, superflat has found it's way into Western media. There's Mystery Team, Black Swan, Inception, hell, even the latest Batman film. They all use the Mind Screw trope. The only reason I can come up with for the latter three films is that the director wants to leave the audience guessing, but other than that, it's not really contributing to anything deeper. I mean, yeah, there are tons of people who will begin to apply their own meaning, but, if that's the case, doesn't it mean that the director had no deeper meaning for the ending? The ending was left up to the audience?
Following that, if that is the case, and I understand superflat right, then the trope was just put in just because. Because it was an option, because, well, why the hell not?
COD: Black Ops was a game that had a screw ending. Mason helps to kill JFK. Why? Cause...they could mostly. It was a historical reference that was more thrown in to elicit an "oh shit" response rather than actually leading to anything more.
Pretty much, that whole site can be evidence that superflat has found its' place in Western culture. Whether intentional or not, tropes and allusions are showing up everywhere. Take the Community episode, Paradigms of Human Memory. The whole episode is an allusion to flashback episodes, for the sake of parody, so, that would make it not superflat. However, the show is flashing back to events that never happened, for the sake of humor. This might have been a somewhat meta and complicated episode, but the point still stands: there are an enormous amount of shows that follow these normal tropes, and they do it for no other reason than that every other show is doing it, and the audience will recognize it. There's no deeper meaning, just a level of comfort for viewers. I wouldn't be surprised if more examples start to become more prominent, with our culture being so fixated on popular culture, it only seems natural that more references will be made or alluded to for no other purpose than to just do it.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Friday, October 12, 2012
Superflat
I won't lie, I was coming into this blog posting blind. I'm not a huge fan of Japanese video games or culture. That's not to say I don't respect it, it just doesn't appeal to me for entertainment purposes. However, I found "Earth at my Window" extremely informative.
I had never really thought of the fact that the pushing for a culturally identity in Japan had probably started around the time of the atomic bombs. I agree with Murikami about just how long lasting the effects would be from such a tragic, devastating period in Japanese history. The bombs left Japanese culture floundering. There were United States troops stationed there acting as a reminder of what occurred. So much death and destruction, especially long term, captured the Japanese culture. I would question whether there was really more to life than waiting for death if I had been put in the same situation. It's easy to see why Japanese films and anime consistently put forth protagonists who were extremely anti-war. "Howl's Moving Castle" is one of the few Japanese films I've seen. I never really looked at all the symbols, like how war corrupts and destroys Howl. Then there's the fact that the film was looking to distance itself from American films. Sophie represented the searching for an identity between the old and the new.
I just feel like I can understand Japanese video games a little more fully now. Now that I can step back and see how many of the games show real human difficulties, such as poverty, hunger, pride, etc. I'll have a little more of a grasp on the art style and design of the games. I think the area that struck me most was how the games seek to identify an inner self, as well as a collective self, while also trying to represent the personal taste, indigenous culture. Critiquing the horrors of war and how it can wear down the soul of a man is a topic that I think could translate to Western culture. Especially with the state of the nation and world at this moment, I can't see how it could hurt anything. I also like the idea of video games showing life as fulfilling, having energy and cheerfulness. That might not be the climate of society, but I think that's why it's needed the most.
Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily think we'll ever escape war, or that we'll ever be happy with life in the moment. Even the idea of creating humans, a step above robots, is still such a large goal for our species, I can't see it ever stopping. But why can't we at least be happy, and try to promote that while trying to condense our propensity for all of these unnecessary things.
The commercial was an ambivalent experience for me. I'm not a fan of cartoons/animes, but I was a fan of the message. The superflat movement, if I understand it right, promotes humanity, in a sense, while critiquing consumer culture, or a production line society. I do think humans are already acting more robotic and disconnected from what it means to live, to have a self identity. I respect that the most out of Japanese games and culture. Humans are the ones who possession emotions, the capacity to love, the capacity to sympathise, the capacity to create things that make us feel connected, but also leave us feeling like an individual. Maybe if the focus was more on culture and people, then perhaps the world could be a happier place, a place filled with amazing understanding and sharing.
However, I don't think Western cultures really ready for that type of individuality, for that type of optimism, at least, not right now. I think the problem comes from the fact that we in the West are still focused on reality, on watching people doing the things we do everyday. We're also focused in on what the celebrities are wearing, where they're eating, who they're dating, and so on. We're not a culture that's focused on being different, on being an individual, we're all about keeping up with the Joneses. Buy these shoes, where this brand, drink this coffee. I sound like a hipster right now, but it's just the truth, and there's nothing wrong with that. This is just how the past has shaped our current culture. Maybe it'll change, but not anytime soon.
I had never really thought of the fact that the pushing for a culturally identity in Japan had probably started around the time of the atomic bombs. I agree with Murikami about just how long lasting the effects would be from such a tragic, devastating period in Japanese history. The bombs left Japanese culture floundering. There were United States troops stationed there acting as a reminder of what occurred. So much death and destruction, especially long term, captured the Japanese culture. I would question whether there was really more to life than waiting for death if I had been put in the same situation. It's easy to see why Japanese films and anime consistently put forth protagonists who were extremely anti-war. "Howl's Moving Castle" is one of the few Japanese films I've seen. I never really looked at all the symbols, like how war corrupts and destroys Howl. Then there's the fact that the film was looking to distance itself from American films. Sophie represented the searching for an identity between the old and the new.
I just feel like I can understand Japanese video games a little more fully now. Now that I can step back and see how many of the games show real human difficulties, such as poverty, hunger, pride, etc. I'll have a little more of a grasp on the art style and design of the games. I think the area that struck me most was how the games seek to identify an inner self, as well as a collective self, while also trying to represent the personal taste, indigenous culture. Critiquing the horrors of war and how it can wear down the soul of a man is a topic that I think could translate to Western culture. Especially with the state of the nation and world at this moment, I can't see how it could hurt anything. I also like the idea of video games showing life as fulfilling, having energy and cheerfulness. That might not be the climate of society, but I think that's why it's needed the most.
Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily think we'll ever escape war, or that we'll ever be happy with life in the moment. Even the idea of creating humans, a step above robots, is still such a large goal for our species, I can't see it ever stopping. But why can't we at least be happy, and try to promote that while trying to condense our propensity for all of these unnecessary things.
The commercial was an ambivalent experience for me. I'm not a fan of cartoons/animes, but I was a fan of the message. The superflat movement, if I understand it right, promotes humanity, in a sense, while critiquing consumer culture, or a production line society. I do think humans are already acting more robotic and disconnected from what it means to live, to have a self identity. I respect that the most out of Japanese games and culture. Humans are the ones who possession emotions, the capacity to love, the capacity to sympathise, the capacity to create things that make us feel connected, but also leave us feeling like an individual. Maybe if the focus was more on culture and people, then perhaps the world could be a happier place, a place filled with amazing understanding and sharing.
However, I don't think Western cultures really ready for that type of individuality, for that type of optimism, at least, not right now. I think the problem comes from the fact that we in the West are still focused on reality, on watching people doing the things we do everyday. We're also focused in on what the celebrities are wearing, where they're eating, who they're dating, and so on. We're not a culture that's focused on being different, on being an individual, we're all about keeping up with the Joneses. Buy these shoes, where this brand, drink this coffee. I sound like a hipster right now, but it's just the truth, and there's nothing wrong with that. This is just how the past has shaped our current culture. Maybe it'll change, but not anytime soon.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Convergence Culture Chapter 4
Chapter 4 was called Quentin Tarantinos' Star Wars: Grassroots Creativity Meets the Media Journey.
The chapter focused on how grassroots culture is a blossoming sector of culture as a whole. Television, film, music, etc. are now open and available for the amateur auteur to take a stab at. Grassroots culture used to be an invisible group, mainly because they had no way of sharing their creations. The internet has now made it so that anyone and everyone can create something and share it with hundreds of thousands of people.
Grassroots experimentation has acted as an innovator, creating new sounds, new artists, new techniques, and new consumer relations. It used to be that members of the commercial culture would try and put an end to these fan based creations. They felt it was infringing upon their profit and the intellectual property. However, culture is veering towards participatory culture, where cultural and societal protocols are open ended, with less control from the media. It's more like creation for creations sake, not for a profit or to infringe upon anyone's work.
There's the prohibitionist stance, which wants to regulate and criminalize fan participation, due to fear of it getting out of control. Napster is one of those institutions of fan participation that led to music downloads, which led to a firestorm that I think everyone's familiar with.
The collaborationists stance encourages fan participation, and this stance generally applies to newer forms of media, such as internet, games, and in a lesser way, cell phones. Many video games and their companies are turning to a support of this position. Fans are creating game types, skins, noises, add ons for combat bars, and so on. They are active participants in creating the world of a game, in furthering it's entertainment and appeal.
There is a split in forms of culture; there is mass culture, which is the producer, and then there is popular culture, which is the consumer. These grassroots artists are blending the two together, blurring lines so that the groups can act as a whole. However, many larger entertainment companies don't want to see this reality, because once the consumer becomes a producer, there is a chance of losing customers or fans to them. However, in actuality, everyone already exists in both, as producers consume a good amount of culture, while consumers now have tools available to them so that they may produce their art.
The mainstream media already draws from and absorbs certain grassroots practices and creations. Interesting ideas, creative world or characters, implementation of game elements, many of these started as grassroot ideas that are now becoming productions from larger media.
Lucas Arts was the larger example given. Lucas started out completely open to letting fans create new stories in the world that he had built. He allowed them to be sent it, he created competitions, and so on. However, it has gotten to a point where they are claiming that fans are doing damage to the spirit of a franchise like Star Wars. What I feel is actually happening is the fact that fans are becoming more and more talented, and technology is becoming so advanced, that larger companies are fearing loss of profits and fan bases to these indie creations.
The chapter focused on how grassroots culture is a blossoming sector of culture as a whole. Television, film, music, etc. are now open and available for the amateur auteur to take a stab at. Grassroots culture used to be an invisible group, mainly because they had no way of sharing their creations. The internet has now made it so that anyone and everyone can create something and share it with hundreds of thousands of people.
Grassroots experimentation has acted as an innovator, creating new sounds, new artists, new techniques, and new consumer relations. It used to be that members of the commercial culture would try and put an end to these fan based creations. They felt it was infringing upon their profit and the intellectual property. However, culture is veering towards participatory culture, where cultural and societal protocols are open ended, with less control from the media. It's more like creation for creations sake, not for a profit or to infringe upon anyone's work.
There's the prohibitionist stance, which wants to regulate and criminalize fan participation, due to fear of it getting out of control. Napster is one of those institutions of fan participation that led to music downloads, which led to a firestorm that I think everyone's familiar with.
The collaborationists stance encourages fan participation, and this stance generally applies to newer forms of media, such as internet, games, and in a lesser way, cell phones. Many video games and their companies are turning to a support of this position. Fans are creating game types, skins, noises, add ons for combat bars, and so on. They are active participants in creating the world of a game, in furthering it's entertainment and appeal.
There is a split in forms of culture; there is mass culture, which is the producer, and then there is popular culture, which is the consumer. These grassroots artists are blending the two together, blurring lines so that the groups can act as a whole. However, many larger entertainment companies don't want to see this reality, because once the consumer becomes a producer, there is a chance of losing customers or fans to them. However, in actuality, everyone already exists in both, as producers consume a good amount of culture, while consumers now have tools available to them so that they may produce their art.
The mainstream media already draws from and absorbs certain grassroots practices and creations. Interesting ideas, creative world or characters, implementation of game elements, many of these started as grassroot ideas that are now becoming productions from larger media.
Lucas Arts was the larger example given. Lucas started out completely open to letting fans create new stories in the world that he had built. He allowed them to be sent it, he created competitions, and so on. However, it has gotten to a point where they are claiming that fans are doing damage to the spirit of a franchise like Star Wars. What I feel is actually happening is the fact that fans are becoming more and more talented, and technology is becoming so advanced, that larger companies are fearing loss of profits and fan bases to these indie creations.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Jennifer Helper
Okay, I won't lie, I got really annoyed and upset over this whole ordeal. I didn't even know about it at the time that it was occurring, so I'm a little late to the party, but still.
I do think this is a problem with the gaming community, and I only say that because I exist in both world. I'm a gamer, but I'm a casual enough gamer so that I stand on the outside a lot of the time, especially during class. Look, I understand, people didn't like her comments, but that's no reason for personal insults. Hell, criticize her writing for the game, or go after the company as a whole, but make the comments weighty, make them count. Calling someone any number of names is cruel. There's nothing mature about it, there's nothing intelligent to be taken away from it, and you're doing a disservice to yourself and the community that you're representing.
I wasn't a fan of the side by side comparisons of the Jennifer and Ree. It was biased and it's not even a relevant analysis. They're both writers for Bioware. That's where the bus stops. Whether you like one's writing over the other is important, but it's not pertinent to the personal attacks made.
Jennifer was a writer for Bioware games. Let that sink in, mainly her profession. Got it? Okay, now let's look at her comments, about how she doesn't play games and how she wishes games had fast forward options. Those are her opinions. She's allowed to do whatever she wants in her spare time. If you work as a pest control employee all day, does that mean you have to go home and want to kill every bug there too? And so what if she wishes games had a fast forward option. She's not a CEO or creative director, so really, she's just throwing out a desire there. That does not mean it's going to happen.
I understand. Maybe some people didn't like her opinions, that's fair. This is America Goddamn it, have an opinion on whatever you want. But if your opinion is in direct odds with someone else, have an intelligent dialogue about it, rather than seeing how many curse words can be strung together. I wasn't a fan of the Youtube video either. I felt like I would enjoy it at first, just because it seemed like it was going to take a level headed approach from the side opposing Helper. I was wrong. It was still an attack, just more eloquent. The speaker tried to justify the whole situation by saying that players were mad at the game flaws and lackluster writing. Well, that's bullshit. Helper's an "obese cunt" because Mass Effect 3's ending was a letdown? Yes, very logical. To say that the way Bioware employees countered was immature is fair. They shouldn't have stooped down, especially with the high road just a few feet over. But to say they took down her Twitter to censor criticisms of Bioware games is ridiculous. They were attacks on Helper as a person. She is not a faceless company, and she is not an object. She is a person. I feel like that's what gets lost in these types of discussions. Just as in class. Yes, that Wall Street Journal reviewer had no idea what he was talking about. That's fair. But to call him an idiot, stupid, or any other insult is childish and really doesn't get anything done.
Focus on the games, not the people. If gamers have a problem with dialogue or character development, point criticisms at the company and the writing department. Do it intelligently, with research, specific examples, and other scholarly tactics. Don't name call. Don't insult. Don't degrade yourself. Then the gaming community becomes the same type of beast as the politicians and activist groups that attacks games and gamers. They call us names, but let's be the bigger people. That's all I'm asking. The gaming community, and games as a medium, will receive much more credibility and respect if we open dialogues with each other and developers, hell, even politicians. Words are powerful, so use them tastefully and carefully.
And also, on a side note, I'm not a fan of Tolkein's writing either. He's too descriptive and verbose when it comes to environment and backdrop for me, which left me feeling that the characters were somewhat flat. That's an opinion. Not something that you should encourage other "nerds" to jump upon for a point of critique. I respect that you think it's ridiculous, and I respect what Tolkein did for fantasy as a whole. Just not a fan. That's all.
I do think this is a problem with the gaming community, and I only say that because I exist in both world. I'm a gamer, but I'm a casual enough gamer so that I stand on the outside a lot of the time, especially during class. Look, I understand, people didn't like her comments, but that's no reason for personal insults. Hell, criticize her writing for the game, or go after the company as a whole, but make the comments weighty, make them count. Calling someone any number of names is cruel. There's nothing mature about it, there's nothing intelligent to be taken away from it, and you're doing a disservice to yourself and the community that you're representing.
I wasn't a fan of the side by side comparisons of the Jennifer and Ree. It was biased and it's not even a relevant analysis. They're both writers for Bioware. That's where the bus stops. Whether you like one's writing over the other is important, but it's not pertinent to the personal attacks made.
Jennifer was a writer for Bioware games. Let that sink in, mainly her profession. Got it? Okay, now let's look at her comments, about how she doesn't play games and how she wishes games had fast forward options. Those are her opinions. She's allowed to do whatever she wants in her spare time. If you work as a pest control employee all day, does that mean you have to go home and want to kill every bug there too? And so what if she wishes games had a fast forward option. She's not a CEO or creative director, so really, she's just throwing out a desire there. That does not mean it's going to happen.
I understand. Maybe some people didn't like her opinions, that's fair. This is America Goddamn it, have an opinion on whatever you want. But if your opinion is in direct odds with someone else, have an intelligent dialogue about it, rather than seeing how many curse words can be strung together. I wasn't a fan of the Youtube video either. I felt like I would enjoy it at first, just because it seemed like it was going to take a level headed approach from the side opposing Helper. I was wrong. It was still an attack, just more eloquent. The speaker tried to justify the whole situation by saying that players were mad at the game flaws and lackluster writing. Well, that's bullshit. Helper's an "obese cunt" because Mass Effect 3's ending was a letdown? Yes, very logical. To say that the way Bioware employees countered was immature is fair. They shouldn't have stooped down, especially with the high road just a few feet over. But to say they took down her Twitter to censor criticisms of Bioware games is ridiculous. They were attacks on Helper as a person. She is not a faceless company, and she is not an object. She is a person. I feel like that's what gets lost in these types of discussions. Just as in class. Yes, that Wall Street Journal reviewer had no idea what he was talking about. That's fair. But to call him an idiot, stupid, or any other insult is childish and really doesn't get anything done.
Focus on the games, not the people. If gamers have a problem with dialogue or character development, point criticisms at the company and the writing department. Do it intelligently, with research, specific examples, and other scholarly tactics. Don't name call. Don't insult. Don't degrade yourself. Then the gaming community becomes the same type of beast as the politicians and activist groups that attacks games and gamers. They call us names, but let's be the bigger people. That's all I'm asking. The gaming community, and games as a medium, will receive much more credibility and respect if we open dialogues with each other and developers, hell, even politicians. Words are powerful, so use them tastefully and carefully.
And also, on a side note, I'm not a fan of Tolkein's writing either. He's too descriptive and verbose when it comes to environment and backdrop for me, which left me feeling that the characters were somewhat flat. That's an opinion. Not something that you should encourage other "nerds" to jump upon for a point of critique. I respect that you think it's ridiculous, and I respect what Tolkein did for fantasy as a whole. Just not a fan. That's all.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Congress and a Lack of Understanding
Found the videos, so now I'll post the links and update them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpIBLTPMN_U Senator Kohl and Lieberman closing statements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdojFVlAP-M&feature=relmfu Lieberman questions enforcement.
I watched all of the videos, but I'll just use these two as examples of how the government and senators are displacing the blame for the actions of misunderstood youth. Lieberman discusses how the companies that produce video games, such as Nintendo, Sega, so on, must enforce this new rating system if they want to maintain credibility as a medium and not to appear out of control. Senator Kohl goes so far as to say that they have been pushing the limits of freedom of expression and speech to the very last inch, and that if they push too far they'll do damage to youth and society. Those are ridiculous statements. Senators are caught committing lascivious and lewd acts all the time, yet they somehow feel the right to preach credibility and stability? The governmental process is a constant state of chaos, with constant debating and back room deals taking place. They know very little about the gaming industry, yet they feel they have a right to deem it out of control and as a passing industry. That's ignorant and short sighted. Senator Kohls' comments may be worse. Accusing the video game industry of pushing the limits on freedom is a firestorm accusation. It's borderline unconstitutional to tell game creators what they're allowed to put out, just as it would be telling a writer what to write, or an artist what to paint. Then it becomes a police state. I'm all for the rating system, but I don't think the government should ever step in with censorship and an iron fist. Which brings me to the second video, which is where Lieberman asks the game companies, publisher associations, and coinstop associations whether they'll adhere to the ratings and whether they'll enforce the age/maturity limit for game ownership or rentas. That's impossible and ignorant. Before the rating system, small children only got their hands on Mortal Kombat through friends or parents who weren't paying attention. Both are lapses of the family machine, not the gaming industry. It's also not fair to ask the arcades to have a guard on constant watch to kick young children out of certain game areas. It's forcing a company to adopt a new system, and then leaving it upon them to bear the extra costs to enforce it. That's not just ridiculous, it's stupid. Just stupid.
Anyways, I can update this later if I need to when I'm shown how to find them. Mr. Jenkins was right. That's where I'll plant my flag immediately. It's not that media isn't violent in some way, but to say that kids become violent because of the media is irrational. That is taking all blame off of social factors and putting them on the entertainment industry. It's ignoring some of the larger institutions that certainly shape and adolescents life in a much bigger way: religion, family, school, social circles, and so on.
What do I personally think? It may come across as harsh and a bit defensive, but I think that the government, at the time of Mr. Jenkins hearing, up through today, is out of touch with modern day media. Now, that's a sweeping term, and I'm not pointing to news networks or anything along those lines. I'm speaking in terms of film, television, new literature even, but most definitely video games. Video games are one of the youngest forms of media, and as such, it's understandable that some fear might creep into the hearts of the higher ups of society, those who had control over what they knew. They may view games as something that could challenge their position and hold, or perhaps as a propaganda tool of liberal media that they don't yet have their claws into. I'm not sure where the fear and distaste comes from, but I think we can all agree, it's definitely there.
I wish I could say that we as a people have changed in the years since the tragic Littleton shootings, but we haven't. There is still misunderstood violence occurring, such as the Aurora shootings, and yet, the scapegoat immediately became The Dark Knight Rises. It couldn't be that perhaps this young man had never been heard, or that maybe he had been outcast to an abusive degree. He also had clinically diagnosed mental issues. But those things are generally ignored, because they're not as booming of a target. The headline won't look as good, and therefore, there would be less backing for perhaps censorship laws, or, god forbid, complete bans. He must have gotten his ideas from watching violent movies, from mowing down enemies in a game, from listening to speed metal, right?
Well...no. I take part in all of those same activities. I've also never been picked on, bullied, cast out. I've had a loving, supportive family that accepts and supports me. I have great friends. I've never struggled in school, and I've always felt I had purpose. Do I always accept myself or love myself? Hell no. But, it never weighs me down too much because I have people there to listen.
I think one of the heavier quotes to walk away with the whole hearing and surrounding events came from Marilyn Manson, one of the people being crucified and explicitly blamed for the shootings. He's a shock rocker. He goes out and screams violence and open sexuality. He dismisses religion and standard family values. He's everything a government fears, because he embodies one thing: chaos. However, sometimes that's what the misunderstood of the world need. They need games, perhaps violent ones, they need music, perhaps profane in nature, they need film, perhaps with an antihero. These things are needed and important because they represent a controllable chaos. They give the misunderstood something to hold on to. A community of like minded people who can accept them. A place to let go of the demons.
If they have that, there's one thing I believe everyone needs to do. Manson put it best.
"I wouldn't say a single word to them I would listen to what they have to say, and that's what no one did."
Instead of having one sided rhetoric, let's slow the conversation down. Let's have a rational discussion on the purpose and place video games serve in society. This goes back to the conversation about video games being viewed as art. They are art, they are entertainment, they are stupid. They are all of those things to any one person. They're not killers, and they're not the creators of killers. That is the world we live in, that is the social situation that is breeding an unhealthy, toxic environment. Let's tackle the problem at it's base, at it's root, instead of just trying to chop off the limbs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpIBLTPMN_U Senator Kohl and Lieberman closing statements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdojFVlAP-M&feature=relmfu Lieberman questions enforcement.
I watched all of the videos, but I'll just use these two as examples of how the government and senators are displacing the blame for the actions of misunderstood youth. Lieberman discusses how the companies that produce video games, such as Nintendo, Sega, so on, must enforce this new rating system if they want to maintain credibility as a medium and not to appear out of control. Senator Kohl goes so far as to say that they have been pushing the limits of freedom of expression and speech to the very last inch, and that if they push too far they'll do damage to youth and society. Those are ridiculous statements. Senators are caught committing lascivious and lewd acts all the time, yet they somehow feel the right to preach credibility and stability? The governmental process is a constant state of chaos, with constant debating and back room deals taking place. They know very little about the gaming industry, yet they feel they have a right to deem it out of control and as a passing industry. That's ignorant and short sighted. Senator Kohls' comments may be worse. Accusing the video game industry of pushing the limits on freedom is a firestorm accusation. It's borderline unconstitutional to tell game creators what they're allowed to put out, just as it would be telling a writer what to write, or an artist what to paint. Then it becomes a police state. I'm all for the rating system, but I don't think the government should ever step in with censorship and an iron fist. Which brings me to the second video, which is where Lieberman asks the game companies, publisher associations, and coinstop associations whether they'll adhere to the ratings and whether they'll enforce the age/maturity limit for game ownership or rentas. That's impossible and ignorant. Before the rating system, small children only got their hands on Mortal Kombat through friends or parents who weren't paying attention. Both are lapses of the family machine, not the gaming industry. It's also not fair to ask the arcades to have a guard on constant watch to kick young children out of certain game areas. It's forcing a company to adopt a new system, and then leaving it upon them to bear the extra costs to enforce it. That's not just ridiculous, it's stupid. Just stupid.
Anyways, I can update this later if I need to when I'm shown how to find them. Mr. Jenkins was right. That's where I'll plant my flag immediately. It's not that media isn't violent in some way, but to say that kids become violent because of the media is irrational. That is taking all blame off of social factors and putting them on the entertainment industry. It's ignoring some of the larger institutions that certainly shape and adolescents life in a much bigger way: religion, family, school, social circles, and so on.
What do I personally think? It may come across as harsh and a bit defensive, but I think that the government, at the time of Mr. Jenkins hearing, up through today, is out of touch with modern day media. Now, that's a sweeping term, and I'm not pointing to news networks or anything along those lines. I'm speaking in terms of film, television, new literature even, but most definitely video games. Video games are one of the youngest forms of media, and as such, it's understandable that some fear might creep into the hearts of the higher ups of society, those who had control over what they knew. They may view games as something that could challenge their position and hold, or perhaps as a propaganda tool of liberal media that they don't yet have their claws into. I'm not sure where the fear and distaste comes from, but I think we can all agree, it's definitely there.
I wish I could say that we as a people have changed in the years since the tragic Littleton shootings, but we haven't. There is still misunderstood violence occurring, such as the Aurora shootings, and yet, the scapegoat immediately became The Dark Knight Rises. It couldn't be that perhaps this young man had never been heard, or that maybe he had been outcast to an abusive degree. He also had clinically diagnosed mental issues. But those things are generally ignored, because they're not as booming of a target. The headline won't look as good, and therefore, there would be less backing for perhaps censorship laws, or, god forbid, complete bans. He must have gotten his ideas from watching violent movies, from mowing down enemies in a game, from listening to speed metal, right?
Well...no. I take part in all of those same activities. I've also never been picked on, bullied, cast out. I've had a loving, supportive family that accepts and supports me. I have great friends. I've never struggled in school, and I've always felt I had purpose. Do I always accept myself or love myself? Hell no. But, it never weighs me down too much because I have people there to listen.
I think one of the heavier quotes to walk away with the whole hearing and surrounding events came from Marilyn Manson, one of the people being crucified and explicitly blamed for the shootings. He's a shock rocker. He goes out and screams violence and open sexuality. He dismisses religion and standard family values. He's everything a government fears, because he embodies one thing: chaos. However, sometimes that's what the misunderstood of the world need. They need games, perhaps violent ones, they need music, perhaps profane in nature, they need film, perhaps with an antihero. These things are needed and important because they represent a controllable chaos. They give the misunderstood something to hold on to. A community of like minded people who can accept them. A place to let go of the demons.
If they have that, there's one thing I believe everyone needs to do. Manson put it best.
"I wouldn't say a single word to them I would listen to what they have to say, and that's what no one did."
Instead of having one sided rhetoric, let's slow the conversation down. Let's have a rational discussion on the purpose and place video games serve in society. This goes back to the conversation about video games being viewed as art. They are art, they are entertainment, they are stupid. They are all of those things to any one person. They're not killers, and they're not the creators of killers. That is the world we live in, that is the social situation that is breeding an unhealthy, toxic environment. Let's tackle the problem at it's base, at it's root, instead of just trying to chop off the limbs.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Covering, Sexual Diversity, and A Closed World
I'm going to be completely honest and just say it outright: I know absolutely no gay video game characters. I rarely play roleplaying games (except for Warcraft) and I think that's limited my knowledge on the subject. Now, maybe that leaves me to talk about the subject in a separate way than the rest of the class. Maybe I can look at the games I do play and have a discussion concerning this subject using them as the medium.
The only gay character I can think of off the top of my head would be the male character i just played in Closed World. However, I found the Covering read very interesting, and I think it makes a lot of sense. People, myself included, have a true self, the one that we hide, and a false self, I'll just refer to it as the "socially acceptable" self. I'll look at Madden, because that's my conference game as well. Madden doesn't offer up sexuality in it's gameplay or mechanics (not out of prejudice, more likely due to the fact that it doesn't have a large hold on gameplay, but still). Perhaps that's because Madden as looked at as a game for guys. It's hyper masculine. It's a game that's recreating what could be considered a modern day gladiator sport. It's all about toughness, big men, and hard hits. It's not even marketed as anything but that. That's a lack of sexual diversity in a sense.
Or maybe I should look at other mediums and try my hand there. White Collar is a television show that plays on USA. Matthew Bomer is one of the lead characters, Neil Caffrey. He's a very handsome, highly sexual character who constantly is able to use his charm and looks to woo girls to further the plans set in place in the show. Matthew Bomer is gay in real life. Neil Patrick Harris is Barney on How I Met Your Mother, pretty much the epitome of womanizer. NPH is gay in real life. My question is, wouldn't it be more interesting to have these characters as gay characters? Would Neil Caffrey be able to pull of the elaborate set ups and heists in the show if he was a gay man? Would Barney still play as an emotionally stunted sex addict if his character were written gay? I think there's opportunity in all of these shows to flip the script. To add that kind of depth to a character. Not only that, it would add a new take on these shows. Why are all handsome, muscular men in television and film straight? Is it because it's the easy way out? I love the show Modern Family, don't get me wrong, and the premise is great. It's taking what the American family archetype is and blowing it all to hell. But the two gay father characters on the show don't tend to add any sort of insight or intrigue, they're more for comedic relief.
I think that's the problem I'm getting at. Homosexuality is either used as a joke or it's completely assimilated in the sense that it's just like every other relationship. That worries me, just as Yoshino pointed out. Assimilation is fine, but it shouldn't be done to an extreme. That's a crippling move to the human race. Yes, accept everyone, give equal rights, all of that is fine. But at the same time, recognize that there are differences, and celebrate those differences, explore them in fields and mediums that generally stick to the straight and narrow (no pun intended.)
I'll take a game like Fable and point out how it failed me as as sexually diverse game. You can choose a female or male character and then proceed to find a lover, whether in a straight relationship or homosexual one. You can have/adopt children no matter what orientation you choose. Yet, it all plays like a big joke. I'm not saying the straight relationships hold any depth unless you marry your child hood friend from the beginning, but there's no emphasis placed on being in a "gay" couple. Again, that's probably just so no one gets mad, but why not shake things up? Tackle real issues? Have people on the street either commend you or reject you. That's real life, and it would've been interesting to see a game known for it's nonchalance and humor to tackle such a weighty subject.
I'm just saying, even though I have a limited knowledge, games aren't a great bastion of any sort of diversity yet, let alone sexual diversity. Hopefully one day we'll get there, but it's not today.
The only gay character I can think of off the top of my head would be the male character i just played in Closed World. However, I found the Covering read very interesting, and I think it makes a lot of sense. People, myself included, have a true self, the one that we hide, and a false self, I'll just refer to it as the "socially acceptable" self. I'll look at Madden, because that's my conference game as well. Madden doesn't offer up sexuality in it's gameplay or mechanics (not out of prejudice, more likely due to the fact that it doesn't have a large hold on gameplay, but still). Perhaps that's because Madden as looked at as a game for guys. It's hyper masculine. It's a game that's recreating what could be considered a modern day gladiator sport. It's all about toughness, big men, and hard hits. It's not even marketed as anything but that. That's a lack of sexual diversity in a sense.
Or maybe I should look at other mediums and try my hand there. White Collar is a television show that plays on USA. Matthew Bomer is one of the lead characters, Neil Caffrey. He's a very handsome, highly sexual character who constantly is able to use his charm and looks to woo girls to further the plans set in place in the show. Matthew Bomer is gay in real life. Neil Patrick Harris is Barney on How I Met Your Mother, pretty much the epitome of womanizer. NPH is gay in real life. My question is, wouldn't it be more interesting to have these characters as gay characters? Would Neil Caffrey be able to pull of the elaborate set ups and heists in the show if he was a gay man? Would Barney still play as an emotionally stunted sex addict if his character were written gay? I think there's opportunity in all of these shows to flip the script. To add that kind of depth to a character. Not only that, it would add a new take on these shows. Why are all handsome, muscular men in television and film straight? Is it because it's the easy way out? I love the show Modern Family, don't get me wrong, and the premise is great. It's taking what the American family archetype is and blowing it all to hell. But the two gay father characters on the show don't tend to add any sort of insight or intrigue, they're more for comedic relief.
I think that's the problem I'm getting at. Homosexuality is either used as a joke or it's completely assimilated in the sense that it's just like every other relationship. That worries me, just as Yoshino pointed out. Assimilation is fine, but it shouldn't be done to an extreme. That's a crippling move to the human race. Yes, accept everyone, give equal rights, all of that is fine. But at the same time, recognize that there are differences, and celebrate those differences, explore them in fields and mediums that generally stick to the straight and narrow (no pun intended.)
I'll take a game like Fable and point out how it failed me as as sexually diverse game. You can choose a female or male character and then proceed to find a lover, whether in a straight relationship or homosexual one. You can have/adopt children no matter what orientation you choose. Yet, it all plays like a big joke. I'm not saying the straight relationships hold any depth unless you marry your child hood friend from the beginning, but there's no emphasis placed on being in a "gay" couple. Again, that's probably just so no one gets mad, but why not shake things up? Tackle real issues? Have people on the street either commend you or reject you. That's real life, and it would've been interesting to see a game known for it's nonchalance and humor to tackle such a weighty subject.
I'm just saying, even though I have a limited knowledge, games aren't a great bastion of any sort of diversity yet, let alone sexual diversity. Hopefully one day we'll get there, but it's not today.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Gender in Video Games
I watched all the videos, and they all made great points on how societal pressures are affecting what men and women are allowed to do or be within our cultural confines. Even during class, there were a few great discussions about how female characters are always portrayed as overly sexualized or in need of protection and guidance.
However, the whole time, I was focusing more on the male side. Maybe that's something society has imbedded in me; I'm not the man, so my views and beliefs are shaping these stereotypes. I digress. What I was thinking about, though, was the fact that video games and media in general are shaping societies views of what it means to be a "man." I feel like the "Tough Guise" video got it dead on. Men aren't allowed to be submissive, weak, emotional, vulnerable, or anything, because then they have feminine traits and qualities, so they can't be "real" men.
Video games aren't necessarily doing anything to help this flow of belief either. There's games like God of War, where Kratos, the protagonist, I'm using that label loosely, is hyper masculine. He's strong, violent, shows a lack of emotion (except for anger), and he gets things done. He knows what he wants and he takes it. All very stereotypical masculine traits. Take a game like World of Warcraft; all the male characters have some form of muscle definition. Even if you choose a class such as a mage, your human avatar will still be in great shape. Seems weird. Just saying.
Gender is games is following the predetermined road map set about society when it comes to handling gender. It's sad to say, but it's true. However, even then, it's a tight rope to walk. When a game offers both male and female characters to play, the characters tend to have the same personality type and traits, the only real difference lying in romantic interests. Now, maybe this blanket mechanic of character decision is helping to phase out gender, by having male and female characters adopting identical traits, or maybe it's just a safety net. Maybe game designers are so afraid of taking a chance in terms of gender traits and roles that they'd rather have a character defined by sex rather than personality. Now, those two things seem to get confused a lot, but gender and sex are completely different, just as the Extra Credit video pointed out. Sex deals with the biological makeup of a person. Gender deals with the human psyche, and it generally has to do with internal and psychological traits that are connected with masculinity and femininity. I can't say video games are handling the latter correctly, but I can't necessarily say that there is a correct or acceptable way to handle this subject yet either. I don't think society necessarily knows what it means to be masculine or feminine, especially when I can look at other cultures and watch the makeup of these two categories change. So, is it fair to criticize games and game developers in their handling of gender? Sure. I don't think that the only traits that make up a woman are her breasts and her need for protection. Not by any means, my mom made sure I knew that women could be strong, independent, and decisive while at the same time being caring, nurturing, and sympathetic. My dad has all of these same traits. So where my real struggle comes in is fully placing the blame on society and video games. We can sit on a high horse and say that games and media are just perpetuating stereotypes. But aren't we shopping at the same store? By saying that a male avatar should be able to be sympathetic and vulnerable, are we now saying that masculinity can be defined by a certain softness? And if we say that women should be portrayed as being more driven and having more strength, aren't we trying to change the definition of femininity to that of masculinity? I don't think there will ever be a video game that perfectly portrays gender and attributes, but that's because I don't think there's a set standard for what that definition is.
However, the whole time, I was focusing more on the male side. Maybe that's something society has imbedded in me; I'm not the man, so my views and beliefs are shaping these stereotypes. I digress. What I was thinking about, though, was the fact that video games and media in general are shaping societies views of what it means to be a "man." I feel like the "Tough Guise" video got it dead on. Men aren't allowed to be submissive, weak, emotional, vulnerable, or anything, because then they have feminine traits and qualities, so they can't be "real" men.
Video games aren't necessarily doing anything to help this flow of belief either. There's games like God of War, where Kratos, the protagonist, I'm using that label loosely, is hyper masculine. He's strong, violent, shows a lack of emotion (except for anger), and he gets things done. He knows what he wants and he takes it. All very stereotypical masculine traits. Take a game like World of Warcraft; all the male characters have some form of muscle definition. Even if you choose a class such as a mage, your human avatar will still be in great shape. Seems weird. Just saying.
Gender is games is following the predetermined road map set about society when it comes to handling gender. It's sad to say, but it's true. However, even then, it's a tight rope to walk. When a game offers both male and female characters to play, the characters tend to have the same personality type and traits, the only real difference lying in romantic interests. Now, maybe this blanket mechanic of character decision is helping to phase out gender, by having male and female characters adopting identical traits, or maybe it's just a safety net. Maybe game designers are so afraid of taking a chance in terms of gender traits and roles that they'd rather have a character defined by sex rather than personality. Now, those two things seem to get confused a lot, but gender and sex are completely different, just as the Extra Credit video pointed out. Sex deals with the biological makeup of a person. Gender deals with the human psyche, and it generally has to do with internal and psychological traits that are connected with masculinity and femininity. I can't say video games are handling the latter correctly, but I can't necessarily say that there is a correct or acceptable way to handle this subject yet either. I don't think society necessarily knows what it means to be masculine or feminine, especially when I can look at other cultures and watch the makeup of these two categories change. So, is it fair to criticize games and game developers in their handling of gender? Sure. I don't think that the only traits that make up a woman are her breasts and her need for protection. Not by any means, my mom made sure I knew that women could be strong, independent, and decisive while at the same time being caring, nurturing, and sympathetic. My dad has all of these same traits. So where my real struggle comes in is fully placing the blame on society and video games. We can sit on a high horse and say that games and media are just perpetuating stereotypes. But aren't we shopping at the same store? By saying that a male avatar should be able to be sympathetic and vulnerable, are we now saying that masculinity can be defined by a certain softness? And if we say that women should be portrayed as being more driven and having more strength, aren't we trying to change the definition of femininity to that of masculinity? I don't think there will ever be a video game that perfectly portrays gender and attributes, but that's because I don't think there's a set standard for what that definition is.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Male Body and Kratos is a Dick.
Susan Bordo's "Beauty (Re)Discovers the Male Body" was one of the most engaging, fascinating articles that I've read in awhile. Enough fan-girling.
Yes, that was a pun at the end there, but I think it's a decent segue. Men aren't supposed to lose control, they're not supposed to be weak or impressionable. Men are meant to make the decisions, to take action, and to dominate. However, Bordo shows that advertising for men has taken a turn. It's now becoming acceptable to be desired while still maintaining masculinity. I'm not exactly sure when her piece was written, but Bordo seems to have been viewing a turn in the culture of fashion and sexuality, albeit a more recent one. I'd have to say that the stigma's of men being "beautiful" and "objectified" is almost on the same level as women being subjected to the same thing, at least with an eye on today's media. I'll use the film "Magic Mike" as an example. The movie was built upon the idea of selling men through sex. It was a cast of famous, handsome actors, that also happened to be in great shape and shirtless throughout portions of the film (I'm speculating here). There has been movement, at least in terms of sexuality. Men are allowed to be viewed, to decorate themselves now, to be an idol rather than the viewer.
However, I don't necessarily think all gender roles and positioning in society have been wiped away. Take one of the more recent Doctor Pepper commercials, for Doctor Pepper 10. It's a pseudo action scene, in which a man shoots his way through an exploding forest, all while explaining how this "diet" soda isn't for women, because the great taste is completely manly, even though there's a focus on nutrition. Or even the now very famous Old Spice commercials, with the shirtless man who is seducing women watching the commercial. He ends up shirtless on a horse. He's confident, in shape, and asserts himself, explicitly telling female viewers to ignore their men, while at the same time suggesting to men that if they wear Old Spice body spray, they'll achieve the epitome of masculinity, presumably this man.
Even more than that, just take commercials for dinner products or grocery shopping. It's normally a woman that's doing the shopping, or setting the table, or slaving over the stove, while if a man is ever shown cooking, it's generally out back, on the grill, drinking a beer with a bunch of buddies. Then there's Vodka commercials, like Skyy Vodka, in which Amber Rose, a woman who is considered to have goddess like proportions, sells the product. Women drink Vodka, men drink beer. Or, as I'm going on this tangent, take the 1800 Tequila commercials, in which a man in a suit talks to the viewers about how he's tired of all the "emotional" men out there, getting all "done up" and acting feminine, and how they drink feminine drinks, while he drinks 1800, which is for men.
Then there's the question of race in terms of the masculine/feminine binary. It's acceptable for black men to wear "loud" clothing, to match their outfits to a tee, because they have "swag." White men have no "style." Yet, black men are also very rarely shown as dressing up in suits, going to the high class events, stepping out of a chauffeured cars. Black women are generally shown as having bigger butts and getting their hair done, take Nicki Minaj for example. Yet, white women are generally shown as wearing workplace outfits, power suits, or practical clothing. So not only does sex play a factor, race plays a factor into advertising as well.
Moving on to the EC take on God of War III, I'd have to say their take was valid. Look, I played all three games. I loved the first one, second one was somewhat forgettable, and the third was fun. I say fun tentatively. It wasn't fun in an engaging way, at least not intellectually or emotionally engaging. It was fun in how "epic" it was, how everything was so hyperbolic and ridiculous. The scale of the game was amazing. But that's all I took from it; it was a massive game, with massive amounts of violence and gore, and looking back, minimal amounts of story. Now the question that has been asked is if it's fair to be so harsh on a game for bad storytelling. My answer is a simple yes. Especially if gaming culture as a whole wants video games to be taken as an art form. The God of War trilogy was the perfect forum to express to critics that games could be a form of basic entertainment, while at the same time telling an epic story. I say this because of the gameplay, game scale, and the subject and form through which the game was telling a story. Greek tragedies are widely recognized and respected in literature, so what better way to show narrative through a game then to turn a new take on a respected narrative archetype. The first game delivered, but tragedies and epics are expansive, so God of War went to follow that path. Except without the story. It just brought Kratos along by the hand, and put bigger, bloodier places for him to show off his design. That is a disappointment, and we should demand better. We as consumers and players set the bar for what's acceptable, and we do so by shelling out money for an experience, a full one, not just a series of bloody mini games. So yes, I think it's fair to be so harsh, and I think story should play a bigger role, rather than just a testosterone driven killing spree.
Yes, that was a pun at the end there, but I think it's a decent segue. Men aren't supposed to lose control, they're not supposed to be weak or impressionable. Men are meant to make the decisions, to take action, and to dominate. However, Bordo shows that advertising for men has taken a turn. It's now becoming acceptable to be desired while still maintaining masculinity. I'm not exactly sure when her piece was written, but Bordo seems to have been viewing a turn in the culture of fashion and sexuality, albeit a more recent one. I'd have to say that the stigma's of men being "beautiful" and "objectified" is almost on the same level as women being subjected to the same thing, at least with an eye on today's media. I'll use the film "Magic Mike" as an example. The movie was built upon the idea of selling men through sex. It was a cast of famous, handsome actors, that also happened to be in great shape and shirtless throughout portions of the film (I'm speculating here). There has been movement, at least in terms of sexuality. Men are allowed to be viewed, to decorate themselves now, to be an idol rather than the viewer.
However, I don't necessarily think all gender roles and positioning in society have been wiped away. Take one of the more recent Doctor Pepper commercials, for Doctor Pepper 10. It's a pseudo action scene, in which a man shoots his way through an exploding forest, all while explaining how this "diet" soda isn't for women, because the great taste is completely manly, even though there's a focus on nutrition. Or even the now very famous Old Spice commercials, with the shirtless man who is seducing women watching the commercial. He ends up shirtless on a horse. He's confident, in shape, and asserts himself, explicitly telling female viewers to ignore their men, while at the same time suggesting to men that if they wear Old Spice body spray, they'll achieve the epitome of masculinity, presumably this man.
Even more than that, just take commercials for dinner products or grocery shopping. It's normally a woman that's doing the shopping, or setting the table, or slaving over the stove, while if a man is ever shown cooking, it's generally out back, on the grill, drinking a beer with a bunch of buddies. Then there's Vodka commercials, like Skyy Vodka, in which Amber Rose, a woman who is considered to have goddess like proportions, sells the product. Women drink Vodka, men drink beer. Or, as I'm going on this tangent, take the 1800 Tequila commercials, in which a man in a suit talks to the viewers about how he's tired of all the "emotional" men out there, getting all "done up" and acting feminine, and how they drink feminine drinks, while he drinks 1800, which is for men.
Then there's the question of race in terms of the masculine/feminine binary. It's acceptable for black men to wear "loud" clothing, to match their outfits to a tee, because they have "swag." White men have no "style." Yet, black men are also very rarely shown as dressing up in suits, going to the high class events, stepping out of a chauffeured cars. Black women are generally shown as having bigger butts and getting their hair done, take Nicki Minaj for example. Yet, white women are generally shown as wearing workplace outfits, power suits, or practical clothing. So not only does sex play a factor, race plays a factor into advertising as well.
Moving on to the EC take on God of War III, I'd have to say their take was valid. Look, I played all three games. I loved the first one, second one was somewhat forgettable, and the third was fun. I say fun tentatively. It wasn't fun in an engaging way, at least not intellectually or emotionally engaging. It was fun in how "epic" it was, how everything was so hyperbolic and ridiculous. The scale of the game was amazing. But that's all I took from it; it was a massive game, with massive amounts of violence and gore, and looking back, minimal amounts of story. Now the question that has been asked is if it's fair to be so harsh on a game for bad storytelling. My answer is a simple yes. Especially if gaming culture as a whole wants video games to be taken as an art form. The God of War trilogy was the perfect forum to express to critics that games could be a form of basic entertainment, while at the same time telling an epic story. I say this because of the gameplay, game scale, and the subject and form through which the game was telling a story. Greek tragedies are widely recognized and respected in literature, so what better way to show narrative through a game then to turn a new take on a respected narrative archetype. The first game delivered, but tragedies and epics are expansive, so God of War went to follow that path. Except without the story. It just brought Kratos along by the hand, and put bigger, bloodier places for him to show off his design. That is a disappointment, and we should demand better. We as consumers and players set the bar for what's acceptable, and we do so by shelling out money for an experience, a full one, not just a series of bloody mini games. So yes, I think it's fair to be so harsh, and I think story should play a bigger role, rather than just a testosterone driven killing spree.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Research for my paper
The one game that I found that will help me with my final project/paper is Madden, which seems really obvious considering I'm studying how roleplaying and social realism play a large part in what would otherwise be looked at as a generic, general audience sports game.
The first article I found to help me was by Sami Yenigun, entitled "How Madden NFL's Business Lineup Helps it Win Big." What is useful fromt his article is that it observes how Madden appeals to it's audience through it's use of constant updates and realism. The game builds upon the NFL logo and business by incorporating real player heights, stats, weights, and so on. What it then mentions is the fact that fans are immersed in this kind of stat explosion because it allows them the chance to have football year round. More than that, it's not just a passive form of football, it's a completely interactive, hands on form of football in which a fan can take part rather than watching from at home or in the stands. It also delves into how Madden and the NFL help each other through their constant advertisements, because if one succeeds, then through correlation, the other does too. They feed off each other, thereby bringing about the social realism aspect of the game.
The second article I found was by Alexander Galloway called "Social Realism in Gaming." The article focuses on how games mimic the real world, but perhaps not always through realistic-ness. The likeness and similarity through looks and aesthetics would be considered realistic-ness, while realism would be considered how closely the game can mimic actions and procedures that would take part in the non-virtual world, the example used was the Sims. In the Sims, the game characters and locations aren't necessarily realistic looking, being very pixelated and simply rendered, so to speak, but real life actions can be initiated, such as ordering a pizza, or sleeping. Then, there are games like Socom, which looks very realistic, but, speaking in general again, most people don't take part in secret missions, killing terrorists and defusing bombs, so it's not based very strongly in realism. I want to use this to discuss how Madden can act as a "fantasy" game in a very broad sense, because, while player likeness is used, the fields are created to look like the real thing, and so on, the game itself is not based in a kind of "realism" because most people will not wake up every Sunday and go out to make a million dollars to play a game of football. That's where the roleplaying aspect I alluded to will be brought in.
The third article I found was "The Ideal Self at Play: The Appeal of Video Games That Let You Be All You Can Be" by Andrew K. Przybylski. This article is more straight forward than the others, as it studie the behavior and reasoning behind why people play video games, with a specification on the aspect of video games acting as a more ideal self. That's where Madden comes into play again. I assume, and this is my opinion, which I will need more evidence and support for, that most people play Madden because they have a fantasy of having made it to the NFL. There are very few people alive who will ever play professional football, but a game lets players act as their ideal self, the self that had the talent, time, and training, and made it to the largest of stages. More than that, it also allows a player to take on the role of their favorite team. Perhaps their team is terrible in real life, but in Madden, they can bring their favorite squad to success, to the pinnacle, thereby allowing them to influence more than just their ideal fantasy.
The first article I found to help me was by Sami Yenigun, entitled "How Madden NFL's Business Lineup Helps it Win Big." What is useful fromt his article is that it observes how Madden appeals to it's audience through it's use of constant updates and realism. The game builds upon the NFL logo and business by incorporating real player heights, stats, weights, and so on. What it then mentions is the fact that fans are immersed in this kind of stat explosion because it allows them the chance to have football year round. More than that, it's not just a passive form of football, it's a completely interactive, hands on form of football in which a fan can take part rather than watching from at home or in the stands. It also delves into how Madden and the NFL help each other through their constant advertisements, because if one succeeds, then through correlation, the other does too. They feed off each other, thereby bringing about the social realism aspect of the game.
The second article I found was by Alexander Galloway called "Social Realism in Gaming." The article focuses on how games mimic the real world, but perhaps not always through realistic-ness. The likeness and similarity through looks and aesthetics would be considered realistic-ness, while realism would be considered how closely the game can mimic actions and procedures that would take part in the non-virtual world, the example used was the Sims. In the Sims, the game characters and locations aren't necessarily realistic looking, being very pixelated and simply rendered, so to speak, but real life actions can be initiated, such as ordering a pizza, or sleeping. Then, there are games like Socom, which looks very realistic, but, speaking in general again, most people don't take part in secret missions, killing terrorists and defusing bombs, so it's not based very strongly in realism. I want to use this to discuss how Madden can act as a "fantasy" game in a very broad sense, because, while player likeness is used, the fields are created to look like the real thing, and so on, the game itself is not based in a kind of "realism" because most people will not wake up every Sunday and go out to make a million dollars to play a game of football. That's where the roleplaying aspect I alluded to will be brought in.
The third article I found was "The Ideal Self at Play: The Appeal of Video Games That Let You Be All You Can Be" by Andrew K. Przybylski. This article is more straight forward than the others, as it studie the behavior and reasoning behind why people play video games, with a specification on the aspect of video games acting as a more ideal self. That's where Madden comes into play again. I assume, and this is my opinion, which I will need more evidence and support for, that most people play Madden because they have a fantasy of having made it to the NFL. There are very few people alive who will ever play professional football, but a game lets players act as their ideal self, the self that had the talent, time, and training, and made it to the largest of stages. More than that, it also allows a player to take on the role of their favorite team. Perhaps their team is terrible in real life, but in Madden, they can bring their favorite squad to success, to the pinnacle, thereby allowing them to influence more than just their ideal fantasy.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Oiligarchy
My analysis of the game and postmortem are kind of strange, at least in my head. Here's why: I started out with the idea that the game would be teaching me a lesson about how the oil system works, how it's corrupt and somewhat ruthless, and how government plays a big roll on just how much power oil companies have. The postmortem more or less confirmed that line of thought. However, after playing the game and when reading the postmortem, I was struck by a thought: I never really considered the implications of my choices or actions while playing.
My analysis may be off topic or not really what it was meant to be, but I think I want to analyze it by observing myself in a sense. The game, as stated, was meant to show just how the wheels are greased in the oil industry structure, no pun intended. It did that, but not while I was playing, which is funny now that I consider that the article is called the Postmortem. While I was playing, the gamer in me came out. My goal was to maximise my profit, keep away all the locals or individuals who were against my agenda, get my political allies in power, monopolize wherever possible, and basically control the entire microcosm of the game. I did that for the most part. I ended up with the retirement ending, which I'll take over being fired or bringing on mutually assured destruction. I ended up losing my hold over the government and the world gradually shifted away from a dependence upon oil, finding new energy sources and becoming on the whole more economical. However, my choices leading up to this ending were anything but moral or decent. I had protestors killed in Nigeria. Yeah, it was awful, but at the time they were annoying the hell out of me. I released fake biochemical attacks on the American people, to scare them all into believing that the government was right in sending more troops overseas and elsewhere, even though the real reason was that I was being somewhat of a greedy bastard. I suppose I was a failure at being a supreme, ruthless genius because I never did get to move my oil fields into Alaska, but alas, you win some you lose some. I really enjoyed how the game followed the Hubbert Curve, in terms of gameplay, for my ending at least, and in terms of gameplay mechanics. Mechanics wise, my profit and expansion started very slowly. As my empire built, I moved into new areas. Slowly but surely, oil addiction went up (great phrasing on their part) and so did my profits. I hit a point where I was a powerhouse, with all the oil the world could need, raking in countless dollars while also ruling over the government, a shadow hand behind the president and the secret council.
Then came my fall. Now, depending on the ending, I'm going to assume that the fall can happen differently. Mine was very gradual, I didn't just lose all my power and wealth at once, it was a steady decline, and the world slowly worked it's way up, for the better. I think it was an interesting look into not only the politics of the current world, and a great gauge on possible outcomes, but also a look into a mirror, so to speak. When I feel I can "win" or "gain" I'll make any decision I can. Now, my decisions are negligent considering they had no actual real world impact, but I think the idea still stands, and it was an idea that was meant to be planted. It's easy to see where the corruption comes from, but it doesn't make it anymore acceptable, and now I have a glimpse at both sides of the debate.
My analysis may be off topic or not really what it was meant to be, but I think I want to analyze it by observing myself in a sense. The game, as stated, was meant to show just how the wheels are greased in the oil industry structure, no pun intended. It did that, but not while I was playing, which is funny now that I consider that the article is called the Postmortem. While I was playing, the gamer in me came out. My goal was to maximise my profit, keep away all the locals or individuals who were against my agenda, get my political allies in power, monopolize wherever possible, and basically control the entire microcosm of the game. I did that for the most part. I ended up with the retirement ending, which I'll take over being fired or bringing on mutually assured destruction. I ended up losing my hold over the government and the world gradually shifted away from a dependence upon oil, finding new energy sources and becoming on the whole more economical. However, my choices leading up to this ending were anything but moral or decent. I had protestors killed in Nigeria. Yeah, it was awful, but at the time they were annoying the hell out of me. I released fake biochemical attacks on the American people, to scare them all into believing that the government was right in sending more troops overseas and elsewhere, even though the real reason was that I was being somewhat of a greedy bastard. I suppose I was a failure at being a supreme, ruthless genius because I never did get to move my oil fields into Alaska, but alas, you win some you lose some. I really enjoyed how the game followed the Hubbert Curve, in terms of gameplay, for my ending at least, and in terms of gameplay mechanics. Mechanics wise, my profit and expansion started very slowly. As my empire built, I moved into new areas. Slowly but surely, oil addiction went up (great phrasing on their part) and so did my profits. I hit a point where I was a powerhouse, with all the oil the world could need, raking in countless dollars while also ruling over the government, a shadow hand behind the president and the secret council.
Then came my fall. Now, depending on the ending, I'm going to assume that the fall can happen differently. Mine was very gradual, I didn't just lose all my power and wealth at once, it was a steady decline, and the world slowly worked it's way up, for the better. I think it was an interesting look into not only the politics of the current world, and a great gauge on possible outcomes, but also a look into a mirror, so to speak. When I feel I can "win" or "gain" I'll make any decision I can. Now, my decisions are negligent considering they had no actual real world impact, but I think the idea still stands, and it was an idea that was meant to be planted. It's easy to see where the corruption comes from, but it doesn't make it anymore acceptable, and now I have a glimpse at both sides of the debate.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Games and Culture Articles
What I took away from James Paul Gee's article, as far as notes go, were these:
Mind is like a machine, therefore, video games are now an accurate metaphor for the workings of the mind. Life acts much like video games in that both are action and goal directed simulations. Players will take on the characters goals as their own, while at the same time meshing their personal goals with the character goals. This leads to a melding of goals, leading a player to figure out the best way to achieve what the game has set out for them while also satisfying their own desires for going about the mission or level, etc. Much like games, people tend to simulate scenarios in their head, much like Gee's example of imagining a wedding. People tend to go through various scenarios, such as a happy wedding or a failed wedding, while also running through how certain people present will react to certain scenarios or conversations. Video games require players to do the same thing; how a character would go about accomplishing a goal, how the player would go about it, how the two can compromise, various outcomes to different courses of action, and so on. Actions determine meaning, like a glass being used to grab attention at a wedding or being used to have a drink. So, how a player uses the environment or items in a game also determine meaning, as shadows could be used for stealth to sneak by everyone, or they could be used as a spot to hide a body. Games and life interact in the sense that the real world offers the raw materials and scenarios for games, and games then determine a players actions in a simulation. A car comes from real life, but a game acts a simulation for a player who wants to jump it over 50 other cars, as a general example. As stated earlier, game surrogates have goals, and those goals become player goals. At the same time, player goals become surrogate goals. What I took from this is that it's a two way street of assumed identity. The player has to understand the motivations, thought processes, desires, fears, and strengths of the character, while the character has to be open to those very same things coming from the player, and when these two meet, then the best path or most desirable path to a goal becomes clear.
The other article I chose to read from "Games and Culture" was by Dmitri Williams, Tracy Kennedy, and Robert Moore, from the March 2011 issue, volume 6. It was an article entitled "Behind the Avatar: The Patterns, Practices, and Functions of Role Playing in MMO's." It was a study done to try and observe the demographic for role players, but also the social and psychological factors that go into role playing. The article started with two different theories: players used role playing as an escape to become someone they're not in the real world, or, that they used role playing to be their true self that was, perhaps, rejected by the majority or accepted groups of society. The article compared this practice to how adolescents and youths will try on different hats and masks to figure out some form of self identity. They will go through phases and different subgroups to figure out where they feel most comfortable, until patterns and habits start to form, leading them to a concrete idea of self. The other end was that adults might use MMO's and roleplaying as a safe harbor. Generally, adults already have a sense of being, a sense of identity, but, they may want an escape from this projected image. It's front stage versus backstage, where the person society sees may all be an act, whereas backstage, the mind may have a completely different persona as being true, and that persona can be acted out online, a safe haven so to speak. However, one area that was only mentioned in the article and no fully explored was how this safe harbor for identity might hinder the forming of actual relationships, in friendship or otherwise. There is a distance and gap when playing online games, so even if a player is being their true self, they are doing so because there is no immediate connection, there is a divide that they can hide behind, never having to truly commit if they do not wish to do so. The article then revealed some statistics from the study, finding that youths were actually less likely to roleplaying, perhaps because they are searching for "self" and therefore escaping from it or fully embracing it isn't fully possible. Role players in general make up a very small portion of the population, estimated around 5% in the study of 7000 participants. They also kept themselves distant from the general population of MMO players, preferring to keep to themselves and keep in a kind of bubble, an isolated world where their roleplaying would be fully immersing. Dedicated role players were also found to suffer more from loneliness, depression, addictions, or mental disorders than the average player.
Mind is like a machine, therefore, video games are now an accurate metaphor for the workings of the mind. Life acts much like video games in that both are action and goal directed simulations. Players will take on the characters goals as their own, while at the same time meshing their personal goals with the character goals. This leads to a melding of goals, leading a player to figure out the best way to achieve what the game has set out for them while also satisfying their own desires for going about the mission or level, etc. Much like games, people tend to simulate scenarios in their head, much like Gee's example of imagining a wedding. People tend to go through various scenarios, such as a happy wedding or a failed wedding, while also running through how certain people present will react to certain scenarios or conversations. Video games require players to do the same thing; how a character would go about accomplishing a goal, how the player would go about it, how the two can compromise, various outcomes to different courses of action, and so on. Actions determine meaning, like a glass being used to grab attention at a wedding or being used to have a drink. So, how a player uses the environment or items in a game also determine meaning, as shadows could be used for stealth to sneak by everyone, or they could be used as a spot to hide a body. Games and life interact in the sense that the real world offers the raw materials and scenarios for games, and games then determine a players actions in a simulation. A car comes from real life, but a game acts a simulation for a player who wants to jump it over 50 other cars, as a general example. As stated earlier, game surrogates have goals, and those goals become player goals. At the same time, player goals become surrogate goals. What I took from this is that it's a two way street of assumed identity. The player has to understand the motivations, thought processes, desires, fears, and strengths of the character, while the character has to be open to those very same things coming from the player, and when these two meet, then the best path or most desirable path to a goal becomes clear.
The other article I chose to read from "Games and Culture" was by Dmitri Williams, Tracy Kennedy, and Robert Moore, from the March 2011 issue, volume 6. It was an article entitled "Behind the Avatar: The Patterns, Practices, and Functions of Role Playing in MMO's." It was a study done to try and observe the demographic for role players, but also the social and psychological factors that go into role playing. The article started with two different theories: players used role playing as an escape to become someone they're not in the real world, or, that they used role playing to be their true self that was, perhaps, rejected by the majority or accepted groups of society. The article compared this practice to how adolescents and youths will try on different hats and masks to figure out some form of self identity. They will go through phases and different subgroups to figure out where they feel most comfortable, until patterns and habits start to form, leading them to a concrete idea of self. The other end was that adults might use MMO's and roleplaying as a safe harbor. Generally, adults already have a sense of being, a sense of identity, but, they may want an escape from this projected image. It's front stage versus backstage, where the person society sees may all be an act, whereas backstage, the mind may have a completely different persona as being true, and that persona can be acted out online, a safe haven so to speak. However, one area that was only mentioned in the article and no fully explored was how this safe harbor for identity might hinder the forming of actual relationships, in friendship or otherwise. There is a distance and gap when playing online games, so even if a player is being their true self, they are doing so because there is no immediate connection, there is a divide that they can hide behind, never having to truly commit if they do not wish to do so. The article then revealed some statistics from the study, finding that youths were actually less likely to roleplaying, perhaps because they are searching for "self" and therefore escaping from it or fully embracing it isn't fully possible. Role players in general make up a very small portion of the population, estimated around 5% in the study of 7000 participants. They also kept themselves distant from the general population of MMO players, preferring to keep to themselves and keep in a kind of bubble, an isolated world where their roleplaying would be fully immersing. Dedicated role players were also found to suffer more from loneliness, depression, addictions, or mental disorders than the average player.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Adventure Games Discussion
After watching Ron Gilbert and Tim Schafer discuss Adventure Games, I realized two things: one, I have never played an adventure game, and two they kind of made me want to try one.
Anyways, I digress. I tried to pick one topic they discussed to analyze and agree or disagree with, but they had a few pieces I really found interesting. One point they brought up was that adventure games may not have grown in popularity due to impatience in gamers today. I find myself agree with this point mainly because I'm part of that demographic they were referring to. Take the latest Uncharted game. I love it, everything about it. However, I've also found myself stuck at certain puzzles, and when I get stuck, I just sort of wait until the game reveals the correct way to solve it and I move on. I am unconsciously fixated with the action parts of the game, so much so that the "adventure" parts fall by the wayside. Take Call of Duty as an example. It is the highest selling game of all time (don't quote me on that). What is the most used feature in CoD? Multiplayer. Multiplayer for CoD was created for twitchy, adrenaline filled people. There's no real strategy, just constant maneuvering and trigger pulling. It's fast paced. I'm not being bitter here, I'm just connecting the dots logically. The most popular game in the world right now is fast paced, in all facets. Games are quick, killing is quick, scoring is quick. Everything is designed to fit a shorter attention span. That's not to say that gamers and people as a whole have lost touch with their patience or ability to focus, it's just that the society we live in has everyone processing information a lot more quickly. It's a natural progression for a service/entertainment industry to follow that trend, creating games that suit the consumers needs or wants. Not having played adventure games, I can't really attest to their speed or attention requirement, but going off of what Schafer and Gilbert said, I'd have to assume they take a little more time to fully grasp. That's not where the market is right now.
The other point that I'd like to discuss is their assertion that games don't have great or funny interactive dialogue anymore. I'd have to say I agree again. I'll use Uncharted as an example here again. Uncharted has quick, funny dialogue. However, it's not interactive. It's all during cutscenes or pre-rendered quips that characters are programmed to say at certain times. It has nothing to do with my response or actions towards them. Then I tried to think of the games that do have interactive dialogue, things like Skyrim, Knight of the Old Republic, Heavy Rain, Mass Effect; then I thought a little longer and realized that I can't recall any memorable moments of dialogue in any of those games. Was it poorly written? No, not by my standards at least. Was it exceptional, did it have that extra quality that made it stick out? No again. It seems like dialogue is now used as more of a means to an end. It's not really a focus anymore, and perhaps that goes back to the attention span argument above. People don't want to read a lot of dialogue, and generally no one cares about character conversations. Games are designed now to be beaten, and beaten within a reasonable time. Dialogue and talking take away from that. However, I find myself kind of upset by that notion. I've always loved dialogue, I am a creative writer, and so words and interactions mean a lot to me. If there is less of an emphasis placed on those things, then the game isn't necessarily an experience for me. It's just a way to waste some time, play online with friends. That can then be traced by to Ebert's argument about games not being art because they're not a completely enveloping experience for the people playing them. I want an experience though. I want to learn about characters and have a story unfold in front of me, or to allow me to unfold the story for myself. Maybe that's too much to ask right now, or maybe the gaming industry sees me as a minority. I just know that games need to bring depth and character back, and dialogue is a large part of that.
There's my two cents.
Anyways, I digress. I tried to pick one topic they discussed to analyze and agree or disagree with, but they had a few pieces I really found interesting. One point they brought up was that adventure games may not have grown in popularity due to impatience in gamers today. I find myself agree with this point mainly because I'm part of that demographic they were referring to. Take the latest Uncharted game. I love it, everything about it. However, I've also found myself stuck at certain puzzles, and when I get stuck, I just sort of wait until the game reveals the correct way to solve it and I move on. I am unconsciously fixated with the action parts of the game, so much so that the "adventure" parts fall by the wayside. Take Call of Duty as an example. It is the highest selling game of all time (don't quote me on that). What is the most used feature in CoD? Multiplayer. Multiplayer for CoD was created for twitchy, adrenaline filled people. There's no real strategy, just constant maneuvering and trigger pulling. It's fast paced. I'm not being bitter here, I'm just connecting the dots logically. The most popular game in the world right now is fast paced, in all facets. Games are quick, killing is quick, scoring is quick. Everything is designed to fit a shorter attention span. That's not to say that gamers and people as a whole have lost touch with their patience or ability to focus, it's just that the society we live in has everyone processing information a lot more quickly. It's a natural progression for a service/entertainment industry to follow that trend, creating games that suit the consumers needs or wants. Not having played adventure games, I can't really attest to their speed or attention requirement, but going off of what Schafer and Gilbert said, I'd have to assume they take a little more time to fully grasp. That's not where the market is right now.
The other point that I'd like to discuss is their assertion that games don't have great or funny interactive dialogue anymore. I'd have to say I agree again. I'll use Uncharted as an example here again. Uncharted has quick, funny dialogue. However, it's not interactive. It's all during cutscenes or pre-rendered quips that characters are programmed to say at certain times. It has nothing to do with my response or actions towards them. Then I tried to think of the games that do have interactive dialogue, things like Skyrim, Knight of the Old Republic, Heavy Rain, Mass Effect; then I thought a little longer and realized that I can't recall any memorable moments of dialogue in any of those games. Was it poorly written? No, not by my standards at least. Was it exceptional, did it have that extra quality that made it stick out? No again. It seems like dialogue is now used as more of a means to an end. It's not really a focus anymore, and perhaps that goes back to the attention span argument above. People don't want to read a lot of dialogue, and generally no one cares about character conversations. Games are designed now to be beaten, and beaten within a reasonable time. Dialogue and talking take away from that. However, I find myself kind of upset by that notion. I've always loved dialogue, I am a creative writer, and so words and interactions mean a lot to me. If there is less of an emphasis placed on those things, then the game isn't necessarily an experience for me. It's just a way to waste some time, play online with friends. That can then be traced by to Ebert's argument about games not being art because they're not a completely enveloping experience for the people playing them. I want an experience though. I want to learn about characters and have a story unfold in front of me, or to allow me to unfold the story for myself. Maybe that's too much to ask right now, or maybe the gaming industry sees me as a minority. I just know that games need to bring depth and character back, and dialogue is a large part of that.
There's my two cents.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
My Love for Authors
While I was reading "Death of the Author" by Roland Barthes, I was struck by three things: his theory and reminded me a lot of New Criticism, the second was that they also reminded me of Reader Response Theory, and the third was how much I disliked his whole paper.
I didn't dislike it because it was esoteric and somewhat difficult to understand. He had his target audience, those in the literary community, and he was merely proposing a train of thought to that community. I can respect that.
My dislike came from the fact that I'm an aspiring writer. I've never liked New Criticism because, much like Barthes suggested, the author doesn't matter. It's all about the words on the page, which I can completely respect. Really, when I stop being so self involved and take time to contemplate, an author only is the sum of his words on the page. And Barthes did make another great point; an author doesn't come into existence until his work comes into existence. I can see that, because as a writer I feel I should be defined by my work. He's also correct when he stated that readers decipher everything within a novel or book. Readers are not only the buyers of novels, they're also the definers of what a novel means, or what characters are important. I just like to get attention, so I'd rather be viewed as the genius that created the next great American novel, even though it's really the readers who would accomplish that too. Anyways, those are just my small, but significant points to make about the piece.
Now, as for relating it to video games, I feel bad even saying this because designers and creative directors are "artsy" types like myself, I have to say that I'll play Barthes servant boy and say that no, video games do not have authors. They have creators, just as books, and they construct stories, much like authors. However, just as with the writer or novelist, the game is only as important as the people playing it. Stories and characters in games only gain significance and meaning based on how an audience perceives them. In this line of thinking, I'd have to say video games come from "producers." Not necessarily in the factory line sense of the word, but game developers take traditional stories or genres, but their own twist on it, make it shiny, and pump it out to the world. In that sense, no, they are not authors, just as writers aren't authors. I say this because I agree with Barthes, writer and game developers just assemble pieces that have been around for a long time, and they put them together in a way they find interesting, then it's all up to the audience to give the game life, to make sure it's played. The work could have been made by anyone, and, broadly speaking, most games have already been created, just with a different name and engine.
As far as what criteria game makers have to meet to achieve authorship, I'd say there aren't any. Unless a company or designer were to create a completely unique story and experience, I'd say they're just publishers and assemblers. It makes me sad to even think about, but originality is dead, and perhaps it's always been dead, ever since the Hero's Journey. The only criteria I could think of is that they were to create everything new. I'm talking storyline, engine, gameplay mechanics, characters, objectives, the whole kit and kaboodle. Yes, it's cynical, but until it happens, game makers are just imitators, as well as authors.
I'm sorry to say, but for now, the only group or persons that matter in a creative endeavor are the audience. They're truly the only creators and authors left, because they give life to the products we sell.
I didn't dislike it because it was esoteric and somewhat difficult to understand. He had his target audience, those in the literary community, and he was merely proposing a train of thought to that community. I can respect that.
My dislike came from the fact that I'm an aspiring writer. I've never liked New Criticism because, much like Barthes suggested, the author doesn't matter. It's all about the words on the page, which I can completely respect. Really, when I stop being so self involved and take time to contemplate, an author only is the sum of his words on the page. And Barthes did make another great point; an author doesn't come into existence until his work comes into existence. I can see that, because as a writer I feel I should be defined by my work. He's also correct when he stated that readers decipher everything within a novel or book. Readers are not only the buyers of novels, they're also the definers of what a novel means, or what characters are important. I just like to get attention, so I'd rather be viewed as the genius that created the next great American novel, even though it's really the readers who would accomplish that too. Anyways, those are just my small, but significant points to make about the piece.
Now, as for relating it to video games, I feel bad even saying this because designers and creative directors are "artsy" types like myself, I have to say that I'll play Barthes servant boy and say that no, video games do not have authors. They have creators, just as books, and they construct stories, much like authors. However, just as with the writer or novelist, the game is only as important as the people playing it. Stories and characters in games only gain significance and meaning based on how an audience perceives them. In this line of thinking, I'd have to say video games come from "producers." Not necessarily in the factory line sense of the word, but game developers take traditional stories or genres, but their own twist on it, make it shiny, and pump it out to the world. In that sense, no, they are not authors, just as writers aren't authors. I say this because I agree with Barthes, writer and game developers just assemble pieces that have been around for a long time, and they put them together in a way they find interesting, then it's all up to the audience to give the game life, to make sure it's played. The work could have been made by anyone, and, broadly speaking, most games have already been created, just with a different name and engine.
As far as what criteria game makers have to meet to achieve authorship, I'd say there aren't any. Unless a company or designer were to create a completely unique story and experience, I'd say they're just publishers and assemblers. It makes me sad to even think about, but originality is dead, and perhaps it's always been dead, ever since the Hero's Journey. The only criteria I could think of is that they were to create everything new. I'm talking storyline, engine, gameplay mechanics, characters, objectives, the whole kit and kaboodle. Yes, it's cynical, but until it happens, game makers are just imitators, as well as authors.
I'm sorry to say, but for now, the only group or persons that matter in a creative endeavor are the audience. They're truly the only creators and authors left, because they give life to the products we sell.
Monday, September 10, 2012
YOLO
After playing through "You Only Live Once," "One Chance," and "Johnny in an Art Game" I've come to a conclusion: I agree with Warren Spector. Now, those who read this blog and have no idea what I'm talking about, I'll try to break things down very briefly. All the games I mentioned above are plot/narrative driven games in which you only have one chance to reach your goal. Warren Spector wrote an article entitled "Fun is a Four Letter Word," in which he displays his displeasure for the gaming communities focus on games being "fun" rather than serving any other purpose.
Now, I say I agree with Warren because as I played all three games, I didn't have fun. At any point. Yet, that didn't leave a bad taste in my mouth. I was still invested in the games and I came away from the experience thinking, rather than just grinning from ear to ear while my mind was all static.
At first, I was extremely annoyed with "You Only Live Once" because I couldn't even play, which I now see was a gameplay mechanic. Everything was so clunky because it not only upped the challenge, but presented me with a hilarious after death storyline. The best part was, I wasn't involved in that storyline as a player! I was dead! It was all jokes and gags set up by the creators specifically because I had died instead of surviving.
"One Chance" was a much heavier game. I wouldn't call this one fun either, yet, I found myself carefully weighing each option presented to me just because the game had my attention. The choices and subsequent consequences mattered to me. My daughter mattered to me. Yet, by being such a family man, I ended up never finding a cure, so everyone died. I was shocked when I found my wife in the bathtub. I had one shot at saving the world, or saving my daughter, and I blew it. What made it even more scarring was the fact that I couldn't get a do over. I let everyone down. It was significant to me on a level Call of Duty never has been.
"Johnny in an Art Game" was probably my least favorite, mainly because it was critiquing the medium of "One Play" games. It simplified everything down, basically saying, "Oh, you only can go one direction, and none of the questions about life, existence, or choice matter because there's one end to all of these games, and that's death and disaster." This really was a "One Play" game because it presented one direction to move, one outcome, and one very bitter message. Was it fun? Not in the least. Did it get me to think? Sure, about how this was narrow way of viewing games that are in this decision making, one chance genre.
What I'm getting at is this: Spector was right. The game industry has because over-saturated with the idea of having games that are specifically competitive and "fun." The three games mentioned above, yes, even "Johnny in an Art Game," showed that the one play style of games are viable options for exploring narratives. There can still be a whole story, with emotional weight, while having very simplistic gameplay mechanics. The idea of having one chance to do something right makes everything within the game appear more immediate, and thus, I examined my options a little more before blindly running in guns blazing. There were no extra lives or do overs, and that made the narrative more realistic to me. It made me think about live, and how you really might only have one chance at things, and how decisions lead to ripple effects. I think that if more games put more of an emphasis on decisions and outcomes, then maybe Spector's opinion could be realized. Not only that, if games offered existential questions and put more of a magnifying glass back on the player, then perhaps those outside of the gaming community would start to look at video games in a different light, perhaps even seeing them as a plausible art form. Yes, it's easier said then done, and yes, these games had simple production so they were able to build more of a narrative instead of focusing on shiny effects and epic boss battles. But maybe that's what games need right now. A little more of the human element, and a little less of the hollywood production.
As for the bonus post (ignore this if you're not part of my class, it'll probably just be boring), I never tried to get around the one play mechanic. Strange as it sounds, I fell in love with the idea that I had made my grave (literally) and I would sleep in it. I didn't want a do over because I felt that would take away from the magic and originality that my first play through had provided. Along that same vein, I do think that looking for playthroughs online is kind of cheating the game maker and yourself. Why even play through if you can just go online and see every possible outcome you could have? Then the game becomes obsolete because you just read what will happen. To me, it's a lot like reading about the ending to a movie or game online, or flipping to the last few pages of a book. Yeah, the journey's still there, but guess what, you already know where the path leads, so taking the journey is just leg work at that point. Just my thoughts, as always.
Now, I say I agree with Warren because as I played all three games, I didn't have fun. At any point. Yet, that didn't leave a bad taste in my mouth. I was still invested in the games and I came away from the experience thinking, rather than just grinning from ear to ear while my mind was all static.
At first, I was extremely annoyed with "You Only Live Once" because I couldn't even play, which I now see was a gameplay mechanic. Everything was so clunky because it not only upped the challenge, but presented me with a hilarious after death storyline. The best part was, I wasn't involved in that storyline as a player! I was dead! It was all jokes and gags set up by the creators specifically because I had died instead of surviving.
"One Chance" was a much heavier game. I wouldn't call this one fun either, yet, I found myself carefully weighing each option presented to me just because the game had my attention. The choices and subsequent consequences mattered to me. My daughter mattered to me. Yet, by being such a family man, I ended up never finding a cure, so everyone died. I was shocked when I found my wife in the bathtub. I had one shot at saving the world, or saving my daughter, and I blew it. What made it even more scarring was the fact that I couldn't get a do over. I let everyone down. It was significant to me on a level Call of Duty never has been.
"Johnny in an Art Game" was probably my least favorite, mainly because it was critiquing the medium of "One Play" games. It simplified everything down, basically saying, "Oh, you only can go one direction, and none of the questions about life, existence, or choice matter because there's one end to all of these games, and that's death and disaster." This really was a "One Play" game because it presented one direction to move, one outcome, and one very bitter message. Was it fun? Not in the least. Did it get me to think? Sure, about how this was narrow way of viewing games that are in this decision making, one chance genre.
What I'm getting at is this: Spector was right. The game industry has because over-saturated with the idea of having games that are specifically competitive and "fun." The three games mentioned above, yes, even "Johnny in an Art Game," showed that the one play style of games are viable options for exploring narratives. There can still be a whole story, with emotional weight, while having very simplistic gameplay mechanics. The idea of having one chance to do something right makes everything within the game appear more immediate, and thus, I examined my options a little more before blindly running in guns blazing. There were no extra lives or do overs, and that made the narrative more realistic to me. It made me think about live, and how you really might only have one chance at things, and how decisions lead to ripple effects. I think that if more games put more of an emphasis on decisions and outcomes, then maybe Spector's opinion could be realized. Not only that, if games offered existential questions and put more of a magnifying glass back on the player, then perhaps those outside of the gaming community would start to look at video games in a different light, perhaps even seeing them as a plausible art form. Yes, it's easier said then done, and yes, these games had simple production so they were able to build more of a narrative instead of focusing on shiny effects and epic boss battles. But maybe that's what games need right now. A little more of the human element, and a little less of the hollywood production.
As for the bonus post (ignore this if you're not part of my class, it'll probably just be boring), I never tried to get around the one play mechanic. Strange as it sounds, I fell in love with the idea that I had made my grave (literally) and I would sleep in it. I didn't want a do over because I felt that would take away from the magic and originality that my first play through had provided. Along that same vein, I do think that looking for playthroughs online is kind of cheating the game maker and yourself. Why even play through if you can just go online and see every possible outcome you could have? Then the game becomes obsolete because you just read what will happen. To me, it's a lot like reading about the ending to a movie or game online, or flipping to the last few pages of a book. Yeah, the journey's still there, but guess what, you already know where the path leads, so taking the journey is just leg work at that point. Just my thoughts, as always.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Ebert, Stanton, and why I'm not mad
I read Roger Ebert's reply to video gamers. I read Richard Stanton's indifferent article on why Ebert's argument along with the video gaming community's argument were both unimportant and unnecessary. I wish I could take Ebert's side, just for the sake of argument, as I do love dramas, films, and literature. I wish I could side with my fellow gamers and go on a zealous rampage, picketing outside Ebert's house, pooping in his yard to teach him a lesson. Yet, after some reflection, I find myself on Stanton's side. I don't think the question of video games as art needs to be answered, because, quite frankly, it's not answered for any other existing medium.
I couldn't stop shaking my head while reading Stanton's piece. I truly believe art is subjective. I hate high art. Loathe it. I just don't get it. So, how can I condemn someone like Ebert for not getting games? It's all personal. One person might love Sylvia Plath, someone might find her mellow dramatic and vow to never read her again (which, if this is the case, we can never be friends, I'm sorry.) To simplify I'll try and use specifically the medium of games.
I know people that love Skyrim and Oblivion. Personally, I'm not a fan. People might see them as fantasy art, Tolkien come to console, if you will. I don't see it that way. I find the openness obnoxious and restricting at the same time. It's overwhelming, and yet, I find myself given so many choices that I follow the base storyline. Therefore, my experience with the game won't be an "artistic" experience, if such a thing exists. Yet, when I play any of the Uncharted games, I find myself swept away, completely enveloped by the character, world, and adventures. I consider that art. I've seen people play games like Heavy Rain. They consider it so beautiful and fulfilling that it is art to them. To me, it's a boring trudge through a story I don't really care about. I have the same amount of fun staring at abstract art. Therefore, it's not art to me. The thing is, I know many people would read this and completely disagree with me on points. Isn't the fact that we can argue about whether games are art self-explanatory? I just feel like it's an indicator to anyone joining in this argument; you think it's art, someone else doesn't think so. Art is a moving target. It's not concrete.
Which leads me to talking about Stanton's most prolific point, in my opinion: Critics don't even know what art is. His simplification on this point, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like," is probably one of the most accurate statements I've seen on the subject. Critics are held in such high regard because that's the title society bestowed on them. So they must be beacons of high art, right? Nope. There are game critics, music critics, art critics, film critics, food critics....you get the idea. Critics are, and this might be a blanket statement with much of my bitterness shining through, fans just as us of a certain medium, and it just so happens that they can write a few hundred words fluently. Ebert loves film, that's his artistic medium of choice. I love film too, but I would never call Nosferatu art, which I have seen six times, one of which I was awake for. I also hate almost all older films, and yet I've found that those are generally considered the foundation films for what we have today. Well, that's fine and good, but I'd much rather play Call of Duty than watch Singing in the Rain, because guess what? It brings me that feeling of joy, ecstasy, and engagement.
I'll let Ebert sit away in his tower and I'll let the gamers circle the wagons. I'll be off to the side enjoying whatever I enjoy, and seeing art wherever I see it. Is Drake really creating art? Not if you ask a lot esoteric music critics, but hell, I think he is, because I can feel it. I guess my final point and piece of advice is this; if you feel it in your loins, deep down, or if something moves you, then that's your art, forget all the other parameters.
I couldn't stop shaking my head while reading Stanton's piece. I truly believe art is subjective. I hate high art. Loathe it. I just don't get it. So, how can I condemn someone like Ebert for not getting games? It's all personal. One person might love Sylvia Plath, someone might find her mellow dramatic and vow to never read her again (which, if this is the case, we can never be friends, I'm sorry.) To simplify I'll try and use specifically the medium of games.
I know people that love Skyrim and Oblivion. Personally, I'm not a fan. People might see them as fantasy art, Tolkien come to console, if you will. I don't see it that way. I find the openness obnoxious and restricting at the same time. It's overwhelming, and yet, I find myself given so many choices that I follow the base storyline. Therefore, my experience with the game won't be an "artistic" experience, if such a thing exists. Yet, when I play any of the Uncharted games, I find myself swept away, completely enveloped by the character, world, and adventures. I consider that art. I've seen people play games like Heavy Rain. They consider it so beautiful and fulfilling that it is art to them. To me, it's a boring trudge through a story I don't really care about. I have the same amount of fun staring at abstract art. Therefore, it's not art to me. The thing is, I know many people would read this and completely disagree with me on points. Isn't the fact that we can argue about whether games are art self-explanatory? I just feel like it's an indicator to anyone joining in this argument; you think it's art, someone else doesn't think so. Art is a moving target. It's not concrete.
Which leads me to talking about Stanton's most prolific point, in my opinion: Critics don't even know what art is. His simplification on this point, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like," is probably one of the most accurate statements I've seen on the subject. Critics are held in such high regard because that's the title society bestowed on them. So they must be beacons of high art, right? Nope. There are game critics, music critics, art critics, film critics, food critics....you get the idea. Critics are, and this might be a blanket statement with much of my bitterness shining through, fans just as us of a certain medium, and it just so happens that they can write a few hundred words fluently. Ebert loves film, that's his artistic medium of choice. I love film too, but I would never call Nosferatu art, which I have seen six times, one of which I was awake for. I also hate almost all older films, and yet I've found that those are generally considered the foundation films for what we have today. Well, that's fine and good, but I'd much rather play Call of Duty than watch Singing in the Rain, because guess what? It brings me that feeling of joy, ecstasy, and engagement.
I'll let Ebert sit away in his tower and I'll let the gamers circle the wagons. I'll be off to the side enjoying whatever I enjoy, and seeing art wherever I see it. Is Drake really creating art? Not if you ask a lot esoteric music critics, but hell, I think he is, because I can feel it. I guess my final point and piece of advice is this; if you feel it in your loins, deep down, or if something moves you, then that's your art, forget all the other parameters.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
The Stanley Parable and Panopticism
The basic overview of "The Stanley Parable" is that there is a worker named Stanley who holds a very mundane job until one day, he finds his whole office empty, so he goes in search of where everyone disappeared to. There is a narrator that guides the story, however, there are a plethora of options when it comes to the choices the player can make.
"Panopticism" by Michel Foucault discusses the idea of a "Panoptican," if I understood it right, which would be a disciplinary project that could be used in society, to see how people react and to enforce certain laws or orders. The general idea being that it would more or less be a tower that was all seeing, but that could not be seen. Not in the sense that it's invisible, just in the way that people could be observed while they are unaware that they are being watched.
This is the basic concept that comes into play when the game, or video in my case, begins, with Stanley leaving the office and going to his bosses office where he discovers that he, along with his coworkers, are not only being watched but controlled. He can escape in the first scenario, but if all the scenarios are observed as one unit, then the game reveals that the narrator is the true controller and watcher. Everything is preset. The narrator grows angry when things aren't going along with his set out destinations. Most of the endings where the player disobeyed the narrator led to the players death. It's just as in Foucault's piece; if people break out of the order, they are being observed doing so, so then a police force would come take care of it, or they would be exiled, just like the "lepers" mentioned, all because they represent a danger to society. What I found even more interesting was that the game took everything to a whole other level when the narrator was cast out because he wasn't following the rules of a woman narrator. It's more or less like a police state, at least in my eyes. Not necessarily a bad thing, as Foucault was just observing the best way for a society to run, but it does seem a bit extreme. The fact that the game even had a full computer system set up to control the actions and emotions of the workers fit right in with the Panopticism, where people could be put in different situations and given different circumstances, but they could be observed in a very isolated manner. It's kind of liking viewing microcosms of animal groups or plants, just on a much larger level with humans, who have free will, or at least a preconceived notion of having some type of free will. The game really showed what the essay talked about; free will exists so long as it's not disturbing the peace or disrupting the flow of society. Everything is mean to be in order and according to plan; Stanely only really achieved happiness in the first ending, and that's because he did what he was told. Then there was the ending where he ended up dead outside and affected "Maryella," I hoped I spelled that right. I saw it as Stanley being an example, just as the people who disobeyed the plague curfew were used as examples, just as though who disobeyed the religious institutions, school, so on and so on. It really fits all of the existentialism we've been reading in our class, at least in my opinion. It's like the excerpt from Sarte's "Nausea;" there is a perceived notion of choice, but really, there is no choice. We are part of existence, just as Stanley, but no matter our choice, we can't escape from the reality of our existence. Even death offers no escape, just as it didn't for Stanley, just because you still exist, just as dead matter in the ground that is degrading. Stanley even seems to try and fight the idea of existence before essence. He exists, and then he was a worker. However, he exists again and change his essence by going against the grain, or turning the generator higher, or even of the other "disobedient" actions he might take.
As I stated earlier, my favorite part was probably when the woman narrator took over for the male one. It was almost a double meta statement by the creators. Stanley's part of a Panoptica, but then so is his narrator, and, I'm assuming here, that she is also part of one. Just as Foucault stated, the police are meant to follow the kings order, following everything with his royal seal upon it, but at the same time, they work for the people against beggars, thieves, murderers, and what have you. So the same people that can use the police force for help can also be taken away by it for not following someone else's rule, just as the royalty could, the only difference between any of the groups being perceived power.
Which is why the male narrator was so angry when Stanley disobeyed. He had a sense of perceived power, but it was just that, perceived. There was nothing concrete about it. This type of disciplinary project can only exist when everyone in a society or group buys into it. Now, this may not mean that they are aware of the power or discipline that is floating above their heads, but they exist in the same sphere because without them, a police force wouldn't exist, and so everything would fall apart up the line, just like it did in "The Stanley Parable." That's what I got from it, so there you go.
"Panopticism" by Michel Foucault discusses the idea of a "Panoptican," if I understood it right, which would be a disciplinary project that could be used in society, to see how people react and to enforce certain laws or orders. The general idea being that it would more or less be a tower that was all seeing, but that could not be seen. Not in the sense that it's invisible, just in the way that people could be observed while they are unaware that they are being watched.
This is the basic concept that comes into play when the game, or video in my case, begins, with Stanley leaving the office and going to his bosses office where he discovers that he, along with his coworkers, are not only being watched but controlled. He can escape in the first scenario, but if all the scenarios are observed as one unit, then the game reveals that the narrator is the true controller and watcher. Everything is preset. The narrator grows angry when things aren't going along with his set out destinations. Most of the endings where the player disobeyed the narrator led to the players death. It's just as in Foucault's piece; if people break out of the order, they are being observed doing so, so then a police force would come take care of it, or they would be exiled, just like the "lepers" mentioned, all because they represent a danger to society. What I found even more interesting was that the game took everything to a whole other level when the narrator was cast out because he wasn't following the rules of a woman narrator. It's more or less like a police state, at least in my eyes. Not necessarily a bad thing, as Foucault was just observing the best way for a society to run, but it does seem a bit extreme. The fact that the game even had a full computer system set up to control the actions and emotions of the workers fit right in with the Panopticism, where people could be put in different situations and given different circumstances, but they could be observed in a very isolated manner. It's kind of liking viewing microcosms of animal groups or plants, just on a much larger level with humans, who have free will, or at least a preconceived notion of having some type of free will. The game really showed what the essay talked about; free will exists so long as it's not disturbing the peace or disrupting the flow of society. Everything is mean to be in order and according to plan; Stanely only really achieved happiness in the first ending, and that's because he did what he was told. Then there was the ending where he ended up dead outside and affected "Maryella," I hoped I spelled that right. I saw it as Stanley being an example, just as the people who disobeyed the plague curfew were used as examples, just as though who disobeyed the religious institutions, school, so on and so on. It really fits all of the existentialism we've been reading in our class, at least in my opinion. It's like the excerpt from Sarte's "Nausea;" there is a perceived notion of choice, but really, there is no choice. We are part of existence, just as Stanley, but no matter our choice, we can't escape from the reality of our existence. Even death offers no escape, just as it didn't for Stanley, just because you still exist, just as dead matter in the ground that is degrading. Stanley even seems to try and fight the idea of existence before essence. He exists, and then he was a worker. However, he exists again and change his essence by going against the grain, or turning the generator higher, or even of the other "disobedient" actions he might take.
As I stated earlier, my favorite part was probably when the woman narrator took over for the male one. It was almost a double meta statement by the creators. Stanley's part of a Panoptica, but then so is his narrator, and, I'm assuming here, that she is also part of one. Just as Foucault stated, the police are meant to follow the kings order, following everything with his royal seal upon it, but at the same time, they work for the people against beggars, thieves, murderers, and what have you. So the same people that can use the police force for help can also be taken away by it for not following someone else's rule, just as the royalty could, the only difference between any of the groups being perceived power.
Which is why the male narrator was so angry when Stanley disobeyed. He had a sense of perceived power, but it was just that, perceived. There was nothing concrete about it. This type of disciplinary project can only exist when everyone in a society or group buys into it. Now, this may not mean that they are aware of the power or discipline that is floating above their heads, but they exist in the same sphere because without them, a police force wouldn't exist, and so everything would fall apart up the line, just like it did in "The Stanley Parable." That's what I got from it, so there you go.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Group Discussion on Game Mechanics as Metaphor
Ryan S. (Obviously)
Zia H.
Zach L.
Our group started the discussion off slowly, because we all only had one example. Zia's example was Metal Gear Solid 3, in which a certain mission offered players the choices of use infiltration, knockouts, tranquilizing, or killing. However, the level encouraged players to use stealth, to get through the level easier and to use up less time. This pushing of stealth over aggressive violence was a metaphor for the anti-war message of the game. The encouragement was to bring an end to conflict through the use of safer, less harmful means.
Zach's game was Fatal Frame 2 in which you can't see anything that is around you as a player, including enemies. It was a metaphor for the fear of the unknown. That which we can't see or understand frightens us most because there's no clear cut way to fight it. He also brought up the game Amnesia, in which a player cannot use any sort of violence or attacks. All a player can do is run away, survive, and try to keep moving. This metaphor could have many sides, as it could suggest that there are some monsters that we cannot overcome through sheer force of will, or perhaps that ingenuity is the way to overcome the obstacles in our path.
I, Ryan, chose Fable I as my game. My thought process was that the gameplay encouraged players to follow a path of good, but evil was not completely exempt. This message was conveyed through the character's image or appearance. Through good deeds and virtuous missions, characters would become shining and beautiful, and are welcomed and heralded at every city. Villainous characters become decrepit and vile looking, with villagers avoiding them and booing them, and finding a wife was also near impossible because of how devilish looking the character had become. The message, in my opinion, was that yes, evil is an option, and it might be the easier path to follow, however, much is lost when choosing this path. Many mechanics become closed off to an evil character.
It was around this point where we kind of lost things to talk about, but discussions came back around when we all agreed that newer games don't even attempt to use gameplay as a metaphor. Zia brought up games like Call of Duty, and how even though the game gives you choices on how to finish a mission, there is still a point A and point B, and there is still the same ending no matter what. Personal choice doesn't come into play, because all missions will still end the same.
I mentioned how that applies to one of my favorite games, Uncharted. Any of them. Yes, there are cinematic moments, and yes, the characters are dynamic, but the end game is still the same. The story still ends the same, the same characters live and die, and the same treasures are always found. Beat a mission however you want, whether running and gunning, fist fighting, or sneaking around, guess what? You'll still get the same game.
Zia brought up Skyrim as one of the modern day games that offers up gameplay as metaphor. His suggestion, though, was that the developers didn't necessarily have any specific message in my mind, rather, they offered up countless of outcomes and consequences and just let players make any choice they want, and watch how these choices affect the world that they are playing in. It's a new kind of metaphorical approach, but one that holds too many meanings or symbols to make it a viable option, unlike Bioshocks metaphor of the gamer really having no control, even though they think they do.
I went back again to Call of Duty. Now, I couldn't remember the specific incarnate of Call of Duty, but it has a mission that everyone remembers. It's the most controversial Call of Duty mission I'd say ever. It's the one where a US undercover operate is a member of a Russian terrorist unit. The player controlled character goes into an airport with these terrorists as they mow down civilians. Now, you, as the player, have the choice not to kill anyone, but it doesn't stop the carnage. It also doesn't change the fact that this character is shot by the terrorists as they flea. Whether you join in or abstain, death is inevitable. I suppose in a way this is somewhat existential, with existence comes truth that death is inevitable, but your existence doesn't end there, which could be said to be true in terms of the game as well, as the terrorists killed this character to misplant the identity of the killers, bringing the world to the brink of world war. Just some thoughts.
Then Zia talked about how Half-Life offers different ways to kill enemies, but even then, there's no real change to the storyline or to the world as a whole. It's more just a courtesy feature for the players. He also brought up Final Fantasy Tactics, and how one of the games features is that when you kill an enemy, they drop a crystal, and if you pick that crystal up, you can gain health or an enemies powers. It's kind of a darker metaphor, but we decided that there might be a slight implying by the game that to survive and conquer, you have to kill your enemies so that you can stay alive or become more powerful than them, but this one was more of a stretch for us.
Then Zach talked about older games such as Sweet Home and Obscure. The mechanic he wanted to discuss was the fact that in both of these games, if any member of your group dies, they don't come back, so a player is left to go through the rest of the game without certain skills and abilities. There's an obvious implication here that the game is telling you to protect your team, keep your partners alive, because teamwork and cooperation will make it easier to work through struggles and conflict.
That was when class came to an end, so that's more or less our groups discussion. I thought it was pretty insightful, but that might just be my bias.
Zia H.
Zach L.
Our group started the discussion off slowly, because we all only had one example. Zia's example was Metal Gear Solid 3, in which a certain mission offered players the choices of use infiltration, knockouts, tranquilizing, or killing. However, the level encouraged players to use stealth, to get through the level easier and to use up less time. This pushing of stealth over aggressive violence was a metaphor for the anti-war message of the game. The encouragement was to bring an end to conflict through the use of safer, less harmful means.
Zach's game was Fatal Frame 2 in which you can't see anything that is around you as a player, including enemies. It was a metaphor for the fear of the unknown. That which we can't see or understand frightens us most because there's no clear cut way to fight it. He also brought up the game Amnesia, in which a player cannot use any sort of violence or attacks. All a player can do is run away, survive, and try to keep moving. This metaphor could have many sides, as it could suggest that there are some monsters that we cannot overcome through sheer force of will, or perhaps that ingenuity is the way to overcome the obstacles in our path.
I, Ryan, chose Fable I as my game. My thought process was that the gameplay encouraged players to follow a path of good, but evil was not completely exempt. This message was conveyed through the character's image or appearance. Through good deeds and virtuous missions, characters would become shining and beautiful, and are welcomed and heralded at every city. Villainous characters become decrepit and vile looking, with villagers avoiding them and booing them, and finding a wife was also near impossible because of how devilish looking the character had become. The message, in my opinion, was that yes, evil is an option, and it might be the easier path to follow, however, much is lost when choosing this path. Many mechanics become closed off to an evil character.
It was around this point where we kind of lost things to talk about, but discussions came back around when we all agreed that newer games don't even attempt to use gameplay as a metaphor. Zia brought up games like Call of Duty, and how even though the game gives you choices on how to finish a mission, there is still a point A and point B, and there is still the same ending no matter what. Personal choice doesn't come into play, because all missions will still end the same.
I mentioned how that applies to one of my favorite games, Uncharted. Any of them. Yes, there are cinematic moments, and yes, the characters are dynamic, but the end game is still the same. The story still ends the same, the same characters live and die, and the same treasures are always found. Beat a mission however you want, whether running and gunning, fist fighting, or sneaking around, guess what? You'll still get the same game.
Zia brought up Skyrim as one of the modern day games that offers up gameplay as metaphor. His suggestion, though, was that the developers didn't necessarily have any specific message in my mind, rather, they offered up countless of outcomes and consequences and just let players make any choice they want, and watch how these choices affect the world that they are playing in. It's a new kind of metaphorical approach, but one that holds too many meanings or symbols to make it a viable option, unlike Bioshocks metaphor of the gamer really having no control, even though they think they do.
I went back again to Call of Duty. Now, I couldn't remember the specific incarnate of Call of Duty, but it has a mission that everyone remembers. It's the most controversial Call of Duty mission I'd say ever. It's the one where a US undercover operate is a member of a Russian terrorist unit. The player controlled character goes into an airport with these terrorists as they mow down civilians. Now, you, as the player, have the choice not to kill anyone, but it doesn't stop the carnage. It also doesn't change the fact that this character is shot by the terrorists as they flea. Whether you join in or abstain, death is inevitable. I suppose in a way this is somewhat existential, with existence comes truth that death is inevitable, but your existence doesn't end there, which could be said to be true in terms of the game as well, as the terrorists killed this character to misplant the identity of the killers, bringing the world to the brink of world war. Just some thoughts.
Then Zia talked about how Half-Life offers different ways to kill enemies, but even then, there's no real change to the storyline or to the world as a whole. It's more just a courtesy feature for the players. He also brought up Final Fantasy Tactics, and how one of the games features is that when you kill an enemy, they drop a crystal, and if you pick that crystal up, you can gain health or an enemies powers. It's kind of a darker metaphor, but we decided that there might be a slight implying by the game that to survive and conquer, you have to kill your enemies so that you can stay alive or become more powerful than them, but this one was more of a stretch for us.
Then Zach talked about older games such as Sweet Home and Obscure. The mechanic he wanted to discuss was the fact that in both of these games, if any member of your group dies, they don't come back, so a player is left to go through the rest of the game without certain skills and abilities. There's an obvious implication here that the game is telling you to protect your team, keep your partners alive, because teamwork and cooperation will make it easier to work through struggles and conflict.
That was when class came to an end, so that's more or less our groups discussion. I thought it was pretty insightful, but that might just be my bias.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Existentialism and Before the Law
So, after reading the two assigned pieces, I kind of find myself both depressed and intrigued by existentialism, all at the same time. In terms of how it, as a philosophy and theory, relates to Before the Law, the game and short story, I'd have to say that it acts as the very groundwork that both were built upon. Sarte's "Nausea" is the one that I truly connected to Before the Law more, and it's mainly because while both reading and playing, I found myself thinking about the games message on decision making and control over ones existence and purpose. In the story, the country man never takes control of his life, leaving it up to the guard at the gate to decide when he may pass. In the game, even when I chose to just walk through the gate, I was led to the "Law," which was just an empty book. In "Nausea," Sarte found himself in turmoil, trying to overcome or understand the idea of what it means to really "exist." He finds himself sickened by the idea that existing is just the concept of being there, of taking up space. There's no real purpose to exist other than the fact that if something is existing, it had already come into existence, and therefore could never truly escape it. To me, this felt almost nihilistic and extremely cynical, but, in terms of Before the Law, I felt like it was fairly accurate. In the story and game, the country man exists first, that much is fairly obvious. But, by using "Existentialism and Human Emotions" along with "Nausea," Sarte appears to have implied that the mans existence came first. His essence does not manifest itself until he makes the decision to wait or to go through the gate. However, the country man is then representing all of man, and what he thinks, subconsciously or consciously, men should strive to achieve or to pursue. So, by waiting, the suggestion could be made that instead of following our desires, we, as men, are at the mercy of what we are told or of a certain kind of implied authority. Then there's the game, in which I could go through the gate as the country man, showing that perhaps I believe all men should want to follow their own desires and should actively take the reins of their own lives. I am creating my essence, what/who I am, by my actions, all of this following my existence, in which I was just a man with a blank slate. The fact that the "Law" was blank might suggest that there really are no, in terms of Sarte, universal laws or guidelines for what life is comprised of, and that existence and meaning are both arbitrary things because they're both actively happening no matter what. Just my thoughts.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
So, the "Before the Law" short story by Franz Kafka and the "Before the Law" flash game at http://www.theoddmanout.net/games/beforeTheLaw.html share more than just a name. In fact, they share the exact same story, as the flash game is, in truth, just an interactive way to experience Kafka's story. It's a very basic game, with rudimentary art work, mainly just dark lines and some wind blown grass. Many of the lines in the game are word for word from the short story and the whole premise is the same. You have the man from the country approaching the gate to the Law, where he is stopped by the guardian of the gate who tells him that he is not ready to go through. The first path I took was Kafka's ending, where I chose to wait and was rewarded with the man from the country growing old and dying, learning, futilely, that the gate was specifically for him, and that it would now close with his passing. The second time I went through this game, I walked up to the gate and flipped the metaphorical bird to the guardian. He vanished away, telling me that I had made a brave and bold decision. The world, at this point, kind of crumbles away into nothingness, leaving a direct path to the "Law." It happens to be a book, but when it's openend, the country man finds that it contains nothing. I won't lie, my first time reading through the short story, I was left wondering what the greater message I was supposed to walk away with was. I'm not saying that the game was eye-opening, or even correct, considering it was created by a living person, which, I can assume, means they hold their own opinions and visions of what message was supposed to be conveyed. I appreciate how the game presented the second ending in a less obscure way though, even if it can't be called "the meaning." I felt like both were similar in design, because I felt like the story was meant to be minimalistic, an unnamed man from the country could, theoretically, be anyone, and the guardian wasn't really concrete or set in stone either. The look of the game followed that train of thought, just using outlines of the two characters and never giving them faces or names. It was a nice touch. I also like how it tapped into the human psyche, like the moment when the guardian tells you to stop, so, after reading the story, the logical choice was to stop. He told me too, so I will. This leads to the larger message of the story though. If I have it right, it's implying that the only person that can stop someone is themselves. Not necessarily a new line of thinking, kind of cliche, but still a strong message that can resonate at anytime. However, even then, as the country man, even when I just walked by, the Law was empty when I looked into it, suggesting that I wasn't ready to really see the truth that was my Law. So, I walked into it learning that when I was ready to learn the truths of the world and life, the best thing to do would be to look inside, to let myself find answers inside...well...myself. Overall, I wouldn't necessarily call this a game, but it was an interesting take on an older story, and a cool way of using newer technology and media to teach a lesson. I really feel like that's what more games should strive to do, rather than keeping everything in a grey zone while trying to make the action the main focus. Yes, gameplay is important, and so is how "pretty" a game looks. However, if games are ever to be taken seriously as an artistic form, some sort of narrative must exist, and not just a narrative for it's own sake, but one that holds a microscope up to society and those who inhabit it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)