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 It was a historical reference that was more thrown in to elicit an "oh shit" response rather than actually leading to anything more.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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)