Slender post

Bonus Post: Much of what we have read this semester can help to explain this game and the phenomenon it is part of. Using at least two readings from the semester, describe your reactions while playing Slender and how the mythos does or does not affect the gameplay.

So, I'm going to go ahead and make an effort to work my way through at least one of the bonus posts. It's truly a shame that I haven't done any of this yet, and have procrastinated just about everything all semester long. I might as well give a crack at at least one of these, so I'll take a look at the one I'm more familiar with. A response to the game "Slender"

I think that in order to understand the phenomenon of Slenderman, one has to keep in mind its history. One of the biggest and most important things about Slenderman is that no one owns him. The idea of Slenderman belongs to just about anyone in a way that goes farther than every story in history that isn't a religion. Just about every concept of a race or creature has a specific origin, and a specific author that can be pointed out as the one who first came up with the idea. Urban myths and legends are a bit harder to find the origins of, and they may be lost in time, but at some point a single author, or a very small group of authors created the idea. Most fairy tales can be traced back the Grimm Brothers. Many of the mythical creatures that Tolkien and others like him used can be traced back to various mythologies across the world. Slenderman has an origin, but does not have an original author. Its existence is a paragon of what Roland Barthes was getting at in his work "The Death of the Author."

I believe that what "The Death of the Author" was getting at was not just that all trends in literature are becoming recycled inspiration, but that as a result of this, we will see the rise of more and more collective and collaborative efforts, and an ever-expanding list of authors to our literary stories. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In some ways, it has already happened. In both the film and game industries we often see credits that go on for miles. Most of them consist of actors, and background work, but even the list of directors, writers, and similar roles is often drawn out to a dozen or more people. In the film industry, the actors are even authorial, in that they develop the character that they're playing just as much as the writers and the directors.

Another key element in the Slenderman lore is where its ideas come from. There is no specific reason to any of it other than "it's creepy." The list of possible inspirations for Slenderman goes on and on, and in that way, Slenderman is also superflat. Slenderman is, as his name suggests, a tall, slender man. He wears a suit, no reason, he just does. He has no face, also no real reason. He has tentacles or tendrils, depending on which version your reading about, and those, likewise, serve no real purpose (except perhaps to make him blend in better with his natural habitat, a forest, which also doesn't have any reason).

One of the earliest psychologists, Carl Jung, talked about something called "Archetypes." Its almost a universally known word now, but basically, it refers to something that fits into a certain category. Slenderman, I think, is an archetype of human fear: 1st, that the human presence itself is daunting (scarecrows, statues, etc.); 2nd, that the lack of expression, or perhaps identity itself, signifies the lack of a soul (and that which does not have a soul is of course inhuman by its very nature); and 3rd, basic fears of the dark, and the unknown.

Even though Slenderman is as much mine as it is anyone else's, there is still a very basic "canon" to what makes Slenderman Slenderman, and those are the things that I've already stated. He's a tall, thin man who has no face, wears a suit, is often adorned with black, stalky tendrils/tentacles, causing memory loss/amnesia, and lastly, the appearance of Slenderman leads to distorted audio and video recording. So... that being said, of course the mythos affects the game. It wouldn't be Slenderman without it. With no author, no complex canon to speak of, and no official storyline, the mythos is all Slenderman has. Nothing else matters. Some other things are a common occurrence, though: Slenderman appearing a forest, the circle with an x over it, appearing in abandoned buildings. Those things are in the game, and the game also includes a few landmarks that were seen in various Slenderman stories- the tunnel from Marble Hornets for example. There is another thing that the game captures very well, that is hard to imitate in any other mediums, that feeling of being watched, seeing something follow you, often there when you turn around, and more often something you see off in the distance, right out of the corner of your eye (which is another superflat aspect, reminiscent particularly of Doctor Who).

Other superflat things I've noticed:
-The main character: unknown, unnamed. Is it meant to be the player's voice and footsteps? Is the player the main character? Lost, doesn't know what's going on.
-Slenderman stories even reference back to itself and to each other in a way that could be considered somewhat superflat. They more or less acknowledge other writers' presence and validity.
-The bathroom could have been inspired by things like the original Saw movie.
-The entire game is reminiscent of Most Dangerous Game.
-Strange rock and tree formations seem to be inspired by real life formations like Stonehenge.
-While there's nothing particularly scary about it, suits can be seen as a representation of power or wealth. Height can also be seen this way. The Egyptians, for example, drew more important figures bigger in their hieroglyphs.
-There are some myths involving faceless creatures, or creatures that steal human faces. Doctor Who has an episode about a face eating alien.
-Doctor Who seems to reference Slenderman with the Silence, a religious order consisting primarily of these odd, stalky aliens whom you forget all about unless you're looking at them. Guess what else, they all wear suits. Aside from that, everything about the Silence is super creepy.

Untitled

Is Time Fcuk Superflat? I don't know, both superflat and that game make my head a splode.
Has Superflat spread to the west?

Well, I guess it has...

Japanese Games

They're cool, I guess. I recently read some of Takashi Murikami’s "Little Boy" and learned quite a bit about Japanese culture and how it comes to light through Japanese movies, manga, television shows, and video games. Quite a lot of information to think about.

It's almost kind of depressing, the way that they think about the human condition. Lots of death and desperation. There's a very very bleak outlook on the future, wish just a hint of optimism.

Could this become a trend in Western cultures. I don't think so. Japan and eastern culture in general is vastly different from western society. It is likely that we will evolve our cultures into two, totally separate ways.

Notes on Convergence Culture

Chapter 3: Searching for the Origami Unicorn

So, I read the chapter, and afterwards, did a search for the Origami Unicorn... on a hunch, really, and I found Henry Jenkins's web blog.

This chapter is all about The Matrix series as an example of franchises that tell a story across multiple forms of media. Very abbreviated (because I'm unfortunately short on time), The Matrix story arc is not restricted to the films. The Wachowski Brothers went after animators, comic book writers, etc. that already had a cult following- people that they admired for their work- and didn't go after people with less experience that they could order around. As a result, people who were experienced with what they were doing were collaborating together so that each of them could create a piece of the Matrix universe through their own medium (comics, animation, video games, etc.). This drew more fans into the series, because they followed the authors and developers who were making the different parts. Each of the different developers of those different Matrix mediums all worked in tandem with the Wachowski Brothers, which made sure that the entire series followed the same continuity.

Long story short: The Matrix franchise is an ideal example of good collaborative work in the professional world.

internet flaming

Normally, I just shake my head and continue on with my life when I run across situations in which hundreds of internet plebeians hurl thousands of hateful, ill-conceived comments at someone. But now I've been assigned to comment on this stuff for homework.

When it comes to matters such as this, I pretty much always come to the conclusion that this is the internet, and this is what happens when people are allowed to hide their identity when they say things. On one hand, it's the epitome of free speech... but on the other hand, we see many people use their free speech to do stupid things, insult others, and complain about things that have no relevance to themselves, or that they know very little about. Here's the thought processes I see:

"No one knows who I am, so I'm just as qualified as anyone is."

"I can get away with it, so I don't see the problem with doing it."

"The more obnoxious I am, the more people will notice me."

"I am the customer, and I'm always right."

I don't think this is a gaming problem, I think this is an internet problem... and I think that this is an inherent, moral integrity problem among human beings. It's as the old saying goes "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In short, the internet allows people to get away with saying things that would cause others to look at them in a very negative light, and deservedly so. My concern is what happens when the majority of people see and act this way so much when they aren't accountable become desensitized, and acting the same way in real life, or seeing such behavior as acceptable. I've seen it start to happen before with my friends... they're used to the ill-mannered, offensive behavior that they see online, and so they back each other when they start exhibiting the same behavior in a real life setting.

It's bad enough on the internet as it is. The harassment for some people never ends, and the only way to beat it seems to be embracing it with a "come at me, bro'" attitude. Personally, I think that in this sense, there does need to be some sort of policing going on. I don't mean for the usual bantering cases, but I do mean for the serious cases involving threats of violent crimes, viral attacks, and distribution of personal information. I feel that some of these people need a hard reminder that making a death threat against a child over the events of a game show is not only an enormous over-reaction, and a massive abuse of the freedom of speech, but also a felony.

Naw, there's nothing wrong with politics now adays...

(I couldn't find a video of the hearings themselves.)

Personally, I think congress is still full of a bunch of old, mostly white, pretty much conservative, predominantly Christian, bigots. I really think that our government is doomed as is, it's policies are lagging behind American culture in support of squelching... basically what they think of as lesser class citizens. Not to mention the fact that most of legislature is based on who can throw the most money at congress, which more often than not is companies like Monsanto and Tyson, or groups of media companies working together in favor of more censorship. Way back when the country was founded, Thomas Jefferson said that he believed that a government needs an up in arms revolution every 20 years, which make us about 150 years overdue (marking the Civil War as the last such revolution).

Anyways... as a result of congress, the entire country is slowly starting to drag behind in terms of social and cultural progressiveness. Today, we live in a progressive society, but I really don't expect the US to be called by that 50 years down the road. I'm not going to go into detail about games, because it's not just games in this argument. It's all forms of media, everything that helps to make the nation a progressive one is suffering. Sub-cultures are suffering, civil rights movements are suffering, individuality is dying, minorities are suffocated whenever possible.

Covering Your Ass

I read a thing by this guy called Yoshino called "The New Civil Rights Movement." It posed a lot of interesting points and ideas about equality and liberty. The idea behind it is that we need to move into a new age of civil rights... create a new "paradigm" of it that doesn't make minorities equal, but makes all practices, activities, and ideas the liberty of all people. It's simple and interesting concept, that the focus shouldn't be on assimilating everyone into one group, or completely diversifying everything for the purpose of equality, but that we should celebrate what we already have in common and each be and act as our own, unique person.

What's that got to do with video games, crazy person? A lot! Video games, as well as any form of media, often prove to be the driving force of creating and celebrating culture. As video games become a bigger and bigger industry, designers need to focus more and more on making them diverse when and if they can. As Extra Credits puts it, adding diversity into a game can add to its value, but not all games need to put a focus on it.

So... in the text, Yoshino talks about "Covering." Covering is basically putting on a veil for society and others to see, to make yourself seem more like everyone else, in order to fit in. It's formed by a most basic human desire to be social. It's not necessarily good or bad, but it can be. Covering, in an of itself, is amoral. Everyone does it at some point or another. It can be good because sometimes being able to fit in is pretty important, say, if you're a spy- I'm sure there's more realistic reasons too. But it can be bad too, if say, we cover ourselves to the point that our real self doesn't ever come out; then we're leading a secret life, or force ourselves into an identity crisis- which, if you've ever had one, is actually really scary.

Naturally, this ties pretty well into the LGBTQ community, and into gender roles. We live in a society (in the US, at least) where homosexuality is viewed, for the most part, taboo, ungodly, or just wrong. Lately things are getting better, but relatively speaking, compared to straight and/or "normal" people, members of the LGBTQ community and people who naturally defy certain gender roles lead a fairly challenging life. One of the biggest "covers" is the straight(gay) cover. Video game designers can reflect that in games to represent a more realistic world, create more believable characters, and ultimately, show players a part of the world that they may not have seen otherwise. How many games so far have had a character that's gay or transgender, or even just a character that defies modern gender roles? Not a lot.

Personally, I haven't seen this in any of the games I've played, except for maybe Red Dead Redemption which I talked about in my last post, though I've heard about a few that do include that topic, and even fewer that include it as a part of the game outside of a main character's personal and romantic options. I think it's a shame how little games manage to include on this topic, especially considering its importance in modern times as we try to become a more open society.

Video games is just one industry too. If you look into movies, music, and other forms of media, the issue doesn't come up a whole lot in there either. Maybe it says more about developers and publishers that shy away from the issue, and sweep it under the rug because of how it could negatively affect their reputation.

Gender Role playing Games

How is gender portrayed in games? Stereotypical. Next question.
Examples of games where gender is handled properly. Let me think...

Red Dead Redemption takes very greatly into account the time and region that the game is set in when it comes to making the characters in the game. John Marston, the main character, is a man who is very tough, and fairly hardcore. Making a character in a modern setting and doing the same thing could be pointed at as stereotyping, but an adventurer, much less a gunslinger in the wild west requires a very tough, gritty character. Take a look at history, even female gunslingers had a very macho, tough attitude about them. But while John Marston is a big strong gunslinger, he still has some very humanizing features. He's motivated by the love of his family, and throughout the entire story-line, everything he does is for his wife and his son in the long run, and he eventually dies for them. I know that the man being the protector of the family can be a stereotype, but when as the game goes on, the back-story gets slowly explained, and very implicitly, the player sees a picture of a slightly younger John Marston struggling to make the right decision in the context of society, his peers (who happened to be outlaws), and his own personal feelings, and we see him become more of a victim of the game world rather than a character taking part in the game world. That, in and of itself, is what makes John Marston a believable male character.

Speaking of his wife and son, they themselves are two prominent examples of well developed characters. The relationship between Abigail Marston (his wife) and John is complicated, and explained in bits and pieces throughout the game. She was, presumably, a whore in (or a kidnapped rape victim that was captured by) Dutch's gang, which John used to be a part of. He had a sense of honor that led him to marry her. John's son is literate (which wasn't that common in that time and place), and distant from his father, destined to go on to college and away from the wild west atmosphere (at least until John died and he swore to avenge his father's death). Jack Marston struggles with gender roles in society in a different way, again, as revealed by implicit details and through dialogue. He struggles to prove to his father that he is a hard man like he is, because, after all, his father is a badass who took on several outlaw gangs, and the Mexican government. (It is also noteworthy that the U.S. Government is the only entity that John can't fight against. They kidnap his family and hold them hostage which spurs on the entire game. It could be an event that might make Marston feel like less of a man, since he couldn't protect his family from everyone.) What leads to this struggle is his being brought up mostly by his mother in his father's absence (oh, and a drunk good for nothing hillbilly "Uncle").

It doesn't stop there, every major character in the entire game is very multi-dimensional. But one of the best examples to talk about gender roles is Bonnie McFarlane. Bonnie is the daughter of a relatively wealthy rancher (relatively wealthy meaning his ranch was it's own town, which, again, in that day and age wasn't too uncommon). Being a woman of the west, and a ranch-hand herself, she does have a lot of that toughness to her. She's a high spirited cowgirl (cowgirl in the sense that she herded cattle, not that she was a part of the red-sash-wearing outlaw gang). But that's not all, the struggles she faces as a woman often taking on a man's role because of the stereotypes built around women in that time and region of the world. John Marston (you, the player) will make several comments about her alluding to the femininity of her gender and it's stereotypes. Bonnie's replies show us that she displays a mix of both opposing those gender roles set on her by society, and conforming to different gender roles for different reasons.

The list continues to go on. Dutch, the gang leader, runs away from a fight he knows he can't win, rather than fighting it out like a "real man" should have; he also has a love of nature. "Uncle" rejects honor and nobility in favor of self service and alcohol. A few of the Mexican Rebeldes are female, including a major character, and fight actively (with guns and bullets) against the Mexican Government. There's even a side-quest about a gay man, and another about a man who is in love (as in a romantic love with sexual connotations) with his horse.There's also a continuing list of those that conform more than not. The leader of the Mexican rebel group is a bastard and a complete womanizer. The Sheriff of Armadillo has constant 20/20 sight on his duty as an officer of the law. Landon Ricketts, a once famous gunslinger now (mostly) retired, is a hard man almost the whole way through.

So the game presents a vast array of characters of varying importance that are multi-dimensional. Even under the scope of gender roles the game excels by presenting a combination of characters that conform and/or reject different roles set on them by society. Not only do the developers do a good job with that, but they do it in a setting that is vastly different from today, which is brilliant.

Third Gender Bias and God of War 27

It never fails that I have the opportunity to read the same message from multiple viewpoints about different but related topics in multiple classes. So... I'm going to very very briefly pose my continued thoughts on the matter of gender roles and stu- wait a minute... Gender Roles is something I have direct interest in... Maybe it won't be so short, but it'll be kinda boring because I'm going to be puking my guts out onto the page for I don't know how long; so anyone disgusted with a liberal viewpoint on gender and gender roles should skip to the part where I start talking about God of War.

Here's what I think about gender roles: in the animal kingdom, they are one of the most clearly defined things in the world. In the case of lions: lionesses hunt... male lions eat. Male lions fuck; lionesses give birth. Even in animals that continue to defy their intended role given to them by the Lord our God have very very defined gender roles. The seahorse male, for example, insists on carrying baby sea horses instead of the female. As for another example, it tends to be the male bird that dresses flamboyantly in order to attract a lover, and the female that wears gray, and acts all big and bad all the time. In ponies, for another example, females outnumber males like 50:1, and run society; they also worship the sun and the moon and practice witchcraft.

See how silly that argument was getting? Good... because it's just as silly as any argument for traditional gender roles. If men are supposed to act "manly" and women are supposed to be "nurturing," then wouldn't we all be acting like our other ape kin? Apes... all of them... act in a social structure in which a single, dominant male tells all of the other apes what to do, and if any of the other apes wish to challenge his authority, they must successfully beat the current alpha male into submission. Female apes raise the little ones, and elder apes sit back and enjoy the show. If an ape wanted something, they must have the alpha male's permission, or challenge the alpha male. Apes will attack members of their society that act different from the rest. As a culture, I'd like to think we've come far from chimps and gorillas. http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=5555161

Ahh, oh well, it was worth a shot. So... we could... try to move on from our primal instincts. I mean, look at all the cool shit we've done. We've made buildings for rich people to live in, weapons to commit mass murder, governments to control everyone in the world, poison to sell for profit, and endless forms of entertainment to distract every single person who might otherwise have the potential to do something about it all. What do the hardcore, mostly white christian, conservatives say is our biggest problem? Queers. Yup... it's those damned gays screwing up everything... this is God punishing us for allowing gays in the military, allowing gays to get married, allowing gays to walk down the fucking street. Let's not stop at gays though... no

Let's branch out to anything that could lead to homosexuality. Effeminate guys, masculine gals, women who make more money than men, men who stay at home and raise the kids, etc etc.They're right though... there's a serious problem in the world today... but it aint homosexuality, and it aint Obama, it's people like them. They act like primates.

Moving on... let's talk about God of War.
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/no-redeeming-value
The question is: "Is it fair to be that harsh on this game for bad storytelling?"

Yes? I think so... I mean, to me, it's a relatively simple case of criticism. And I think that the guys in the video are absolutely right. I've never played the games myself so I can't say much, but based on the evidence they gave, I'd have to agree. It kinda bounces back on the topic of authorship in games too. From what I saw in the video, it seems to me that the first God of War was meant to be a stand alone, completely independent of the other 2 games.

Gaming Illiteracy

Okay, so, for an assignment, I need to read a chapter of a book and post a summary (I think?) here. So...
I read the 1st chapter (because it was the shortest, and getting 12+ reading assignments every week makes me less than thrilled to read more than the bare minimum by the time Friday evening rolls around... Friday evening when I could have gone to an ACDC concert for free with my friends but decided not to go on account of having to be a DD, Homework, and not liking ACDC that much)...

So the chapter was titled: Gaming Literacy: Game Design as a Model for Literacy in the Twenty-First Century. And it was written by Eric Zimmerman (Who also sent a telegraph to Mexico that started a World War... at least that's the only other place I've heard the name Zimmerman).

So... he talks about Game Literacy. And he goes on and on about using games more and more in literary theory and practice and vice versa. (and I'm seriously considering leaving my typos in this post at this point, because my mind is so drained right now, I can hardly stay focused on this assignment. When's it due? Tonight? Ahh well... I'll get through it.) First, he talks a little bit about the magic circle. The magic circle, unfortunately, has nothing to do with magic, or circles- unlike the warcraft map you could be making right now. The magic circle is instead a literary tool used to describe the very sandbox application of gaming systems. It's simple: the game rules and symbols work inside of the game, or inside the 'circle' and not outside. Why? Magic! Hence "Magic Circle." After setting up this background for us, we intercept Zimmerman's message that he is in fact using it as an example of exactly not what he wants us to think about, which starts the war in your head about whether or not your brain is functioning on a high enough level to comprehend the complex key terms and counter examples and analogies that the piece is going to throw at you- not unlike the enemies would attack some unwitting heroes in the warcraft map you want to continue making. No, he actually means the verb gaming when he says "Gaming Literacy." Because we are 'gaming' literacy. And it makes perfect sense.

He then eventually goes on to talk about 3 major aspects that go into Gaming Literacy- coincidentally the same number as the game with the map you want to work on. First, he talks about the system! The big scary system that game functions in. Simple enough concept. The second is the "play," where he discusses how the player plays the game and it changes and shakes things up a bit, because the player and his play experience is unique. He also talks briefly on mods and communities, where-wouldn't ya know it- Warcraft is cited as an example. The last piece of the discussion is design. Design sort of wraps it all together in a nice little package. Short and simple: Design is what gives the game it's meaning.

Zimmerman concludes his brief article-now-chapter-in-a-book by giving the reader a little bit of insight into his vision for the future of Gaming Literacy, and what it means for society, and how society is looking to go.

So now that I'm done with this, I'm going to check facebook, and then go waste some time designing a warcraft map that my friends probably won't ever play because they have no respect what-so-ever for amount of time and effort it takes to actually make even a warcraft custom map... why should I expect them to? Seriously? What am I thinking... they have no problem leaking other peoples' games, why would they have a problem with taking my effort and tossing it aside as a pointless waste of time? Maybe I should just keep them as TV watching, drinking buddies, and just stick to our D&D games which are a lot easier and faster to set up, because despite the couple of fun LAN parties we've had, I think they're totally gaming illiteracy.

List of Articles I've been looking at...

Not a lot of research has been done so far. But I'm cruising the web and trying to find some articles that may be relevant to my study, or possibly may lead to a new direction for my study.

I've become particularly interested in gender in video games. In the game XCOM: UFO Defense, and in its upcoming re-imagining, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, you get a small platoon of soldiers from every nationality, of both male and female gender. I think it's a noteworthy interest since it is, in essence, a war game, which means that there's a hidden social-political argument to be had about women in military combat/deployment, and moreso, women on the front line. Should I look further into this, I will examine three things: 1st, the role women play on the battlefield, and whether or not their roles are stereotyped. 2nd, the amount women are objectified as sex objects in both games. Lastly, the context of when the game takes place, since it is a sci-fi genre, and what message the game makers could be (unconsciously) sending about their view of either an ideal, or imperfect future.

http://www.easternct.edu/~lugow/courses/videogames/gender_videogames.pdf
http://filebox.vt.edu/users/jivory/JIvory2006MassCommunicationandSociety.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2009/jul/31/videogames-gender-balance
http://sc2220.wetpaint.com/page/Gender+in+Video+Games

Another major factor that I want to take a look at in both versions of the game are the ways in which aliens are represented, and their physical design. The concept of extra-terrestrial life forms has been around for a few centuries, and I believe that it could be an interesting point of study to see how our imagining of aliens, their culture, their society, their technology, and more importantly, their biology, has evolved with our increased understanding of science and anthropology over the years- from the earliest incarnations of alien life, which were humanoid, to the latest and most inhuman, such as the xenomorphs from the Alien franchise, and the Daleks from the Doctor Who Universe. I haven't found any sources for this yet, but it'll be my next target of article hunting.

Being that the game is a re-imagining, I'll also have to take a look at the game mechanics itself, note the differences, and examine and over-examine how the differences in the game mechanics affect the playthrough experience. I will also want to look at how realistic each of the games is, and examine how realistic it is when put into the context of available technology and limited knowledge on the matter of futuristic weapons and society during the time in which the game was made- it would be unfair to say that the more recent game is more realistic, when the designers of the original could have tried to be more realistic, and were simply limited by their technology and understanding of future technology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI (iPad, or really, the Tablet, was concieved in 1994)
http://winnschwartau.com/assets/docs/Winn%20Predicts%20July12.pdf ("1993: Coined term "Information Warfare". Didn't know it was classified at the time.")

Additionally, I believe that looking into other media in the 1990-1995 period will give a good background for what the people were theorizing about the future. I'm still looking for a source, but I remember seeing a clip once that explained the first time a laser was discovered to have damaging effects. Another interesting note about laser weapons is where we are today.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=laser-downs-uavs (U.S. Navy's Latest Anti-Missile Defense System)

Oiligarchy!

Oiligarchy is game where... *sigh* you know what, just go play it first.

Okay, so... where to even begin? I'll start with my personal experience playing. Alright, so, knowing in advance that there are multiple endings to the game, I went through with one goal in mind: get in, grab as much power and as much cash as possible, and then hand off the seat of power to the environmentalists while I make away with a wad of cash. And I got exactly what I wanted. The only real challenge is keeping everything balanced in the white house in order to create the illusion of democracy. Yes, I actually accomplished this by creating a solid mix of both environmentalists and oil representatives during a term in which my company held the power. During the following election, I pumped over $1000 into both parties and managed to get a senate/house/whatever with all oilers. After that, it was no problem pushing the oil addiction up to 100%, which allowed me to get away with anything, rape the peoples of the world, and the Alaskan wildlife reserves, and the rainforest, and the oceans. I was able to, within 5 years time, drill in every single oil well in the world. During the next 5 years, I took it easy and watched the price of oil skyrocket, and my wallet hit the $1 billion mark. After that, I settled down, let the environmentalists take over, and they fixed everything within 2 presidential terms, and I retired with $1.88 billion, and managed to leave a pretty big mark on the world.

I laughed the entire time. It was fun, and easy. My only regret is that I was born in 1991, and not the 1920's, and as a result, I couldn't take over the world in real life. Also, in the game, I seemed to live on indefinitely, as if I wasn't any one person in particular, but simply, the face of the oil industry, which in and of itself implies that the company was handed down from generation to generation, which, considering the money I pumped into Nigerian armed forces probably made me a Nigerian prince; or, that a combination of money, power, and oil makes you immortal.

I think the funniest part about this game is that it's, sadly, quite accurate. The oil industry is just one of many big huge scary companies that have grabbed Washington by the balls with one hand, while simultaneously shoving the other up its ass to work it like the world's largest sock puppet. I think one of the biggest, edgiest moments of the game is when, if you're in control at the right time, you get to engineer a terrorist attack to rally support for sending troops into the middle east to defend your interests... I mean, american interests... of course by that, I mean oil wells. It was certainly one of the big "they just went there" moments of the game to me at least.

So, all in all, this game is terrible. Terrible in the sense that the game makes an absolute mockery of everything it can about the oil industry with low blows, and touchy topics. As a game, in and of itself, well, it's a flash game, so it's limited in that aspect, but for a flash game, I'd give it an A. And for the overarching purpose in making the game and whatnot... pretty good. Let's be fair, it's not totally realistic, and more just a farce based on conspiracy theories, right?

... right?

Regardless, the game really captures what it feels like to be an american in support of... pretty much anything that makes sense these days, and it does that by giving the player the perspective of the bad guy, which is a cool way to deliver such a narrative.

Notes for class

In addition to "Video Games and Embodiment," written by James Paul Gee, I read "Critical Ethical reasoning and Role-Play," by David W. Simkins.

Just some quick notes, nothing special.

Gee:
Model of Thinking: Projective Stance:
-Wedding example
-Thief: Deadly Shadows example
--Inhabiting the virtual mind & body
--Combined player and character goals

Simkins:
-Critical vs. Dogmatic & Descriptive vs. Normative
--Normative: "based on divine commandment or some other a priori source that acts as a premise for all ethics that follow. Other normative ethical theory may derive its base premises from another source"
--Descriptive: "from a description about how people actually act."
*"This is less a question of determining right and wrong and more a factor of how one approaches disagreement about ethics."
--Dogmatic: "that all reasonable or good people will agree on ethical norms. Disagreement among good people is seen as misunderstanding which clarification alone can resolve."
--Critical: "entails learning to understand new contexts and how context can influence behavior."

Video Games... *hint hint*

In an interview of Ron Gilbert by Tim Schafer, the topic of video game hints comes up. The issue is this: that game hints take an element from gameplay away from the player, regardless of whether or not the player prefers to have them or not. Today, the only game that doesn't have easily accessible hints, cheats, or answers to it is one that has no popularity whatsoever. This is because of the internet. People will ask for help, and post help on the internet for just about every single game out there. Before the rise of the internet, games were not necessarily any harder, but the puzzles and challenges were what they were meant to be: puzzles and challenges. With such a vast world full of solutions and hints and cheats online, the level of the challenge befalls entirely on the player when it comes to such a thing. Is it the duty of a player to play through a game as intended, and to try and solve the puzzles and challenges strictly within the confines of the game? Does it speak to the player's integrity? Or is it, perhaps, the responsibility of a game maker to accommodate for the internet, and count on the fact that players will certainly post solutions and strategies online for anyone to see. Or is it totally amoral? Is the level of hints and cheats that a player use a personal gaming choice, and the choice to make a game challenging in different aspects purely a creative choice?

Cheating carries a huge negative connotation. It's fair to say that in any fair competitive system, cheating is immoral- not in the same sense that murder is immoral, but immoral nonetheless. Cheating is old. It's been going on for centuries- no for thousands of years. One of the earliest recorded cheats was "Eupolus of Thessaly," who allegedly bribed his opponents in... well... this is just classic: boxing. The punishment for cheating in Ancient Greece was a fine. Throughout history, cheating has always been a competitive issue. But now a new kind of cheating has sprung up. We can cheat on something that is 100% personal- not a test, or a relationship, or a competition- which calls to question whether or not it can actually be considered cheating at all. Cheat codes are one thing, and they are different from looking up hints and answers. To some, cheat codes are a disgrace to the integrity of a true gamer, but to others, like myself, cheat codes are similar to game mods: a method used to expand a game, and open up new possibilities that we wouldn't have experienced otherwise. To some though, cheat codes are just an easy way through the game, and I've used them for that too. I'll agree though, that using cheats in a multi-player game is immoral, if it is a competitive one. But how do cheat codes differ from the other two?

While the purpose of cheat codes is debatable, the intention behind looking up hints and solutions online is not. If a player looks those up, there is no question about it: they want the game to be easier. Is that a bad thing? I don't think that it is, in and of itself, immoral. I think the problem here is either laziness, or negligence. Especially when it comes to indie games, game makers put their time and effort into making the game work, and when they do that, most of the time, they have an idea in mind of how challenging they want the game to be. So in some sense, players are paying disrespect to the people who made the game when they don't make an honest attempt to solve the puzzles themselves. Sometimes, players don't care. Again, I'm not going to say that it is in and of itself immoral- to not care. Not everyone who plays games is what the gaming community calls "a true gamer." So I think it is necessary to differentiate from the casual gamer who plays games for only a short period of time, solely for the purpose of entertainment, and not the challenge; and the competitive gamer, who gains more from completing difficult levels and challenges. Some players will often only become competitive gamers under certain conditions, and that's something that we should also recognize. A phrase that a lot of high school and middle school teachers through around a lot is "cheating yourself," as in: if you cheat on a test, you're really only cheating yourself. And it's true, you can cheat yourself to an A, you can cheat yourself into a good college, and as Frank Abagnale Jr. showed us, you can cheat yourself to fame, fortune, and even a legitimate job, that employs your skills in cheating. So is the gamer who uses hints and finds solutions online really just cheating themselves out of the play experience that the makers of the game intended?

That calls into mind the next question: is it the responsibility of the game designers to account for the biggest cheat and hint tool ever seen? On one level, I would say so. But on a totally different level, I would disagree. I think what it really comes down to is "what does the designer want players to experience?" Any game designer who tries to force a player to sit through their puzzle is going to have a miserable time getting people to play their game, especially if they also want the player to experience the satisfaction of solving an incredibly difficult puzzle. I think a good example that I keep hearing for this is the infamous Water Temple in Silent Hill. I have not played it myself, so if you have no idea what I'm talking about, you should find out secondhand yourself, instead of me explaining it to you. Or... play through it yourself so you know what I think I'm talking about. Another example that I am more familiar with, is the combination to get the runestone in the Mothership level of Gauntlet: Dark Legacy. If you've ever played that before, you know what I'm talking about, especially if you hit the wrong switches the first time around, and got stuck in the lengthy process of resetting them, which often meant restarting the level. In either example, you can just go look up the solution online. So how does a designer make a game challenging even with hints and solutions online? I see two solutions: 1st, make the game so difficult, and the puzzles so challenging that no one in their right mind would take the time to figure it out; or 2nd, make the game challenging through other elements: such as its mechanics and overall difficulty. As I already mentioned, the 1st method is likely to make players ragequit. The problem with the 2nd method, however, is that you have to remove the puzzles from the game, or at least give them a back seat in the game's story.

Unfortunately, I don't think that there is a way to force a player to solve the puzzles in a game on their own. It all boils down to the type of player that's playing the game. Some players will enjoy the difficulty of the puzzle, and others will not. Those who do not will either quit or look up the answers. I suppose the result of this is the rationalization that certain games are meant for certain players, and in that sense, games become more subjective when it comes to what makes a good game, and what makes a bad game, simply because different mechanics and challenges appeal to different types of players- much like horror movies, fear is highly subjective and, for the most part, unpredictable- and so is gaming.

I am not the Author of this Post

Sure, we do say that there's a lot that's opened to reader interpretation, and we acknowledge that the author's power is limited by his reader's understanding. Both parties are important, it's capitalism applied to art. The reader (the customer) has a say in what they purchase; what they don't purchase is less popular, and gets written or created less, so then the author or the artist becomes less popular themselves, and gets thrown out of business. Hmm wait, what piece of the lit. theory formula is missing? Right, the critic. The critic isn't that important. The critic is only as popular as the readers who follow him... and those readers also have to have the same tastes as him. So really, a critic is nothing more than a collective viewpoint, aka, a total sheep to the massive audience of each industry. The critics who don't share a view common with everyone can only become popular by being funny (like the Nostalgia Critic, who shares deep insight and makes logical sense when he criticizes the things most people enjoyed at some point in their life).

You may be asking yourself, "Hmm hey, where is he going with this? What does this have to do with the Death of the Author? Death of the Author? What's that?"

Okay, so basically, the Death of the Author is a short essay written by this guy named Rolland Barthes. Death of the Author is not written from a New Critcism point of view, and in fact, is written according to Post-Structuralism. There's a lot of history of literary theory between the two. What's the connection? New Criticism, specifically the concept of "The Intentional Fallacy," hints and points to ideas that get refined in Death of the Author. The main difference between the two theories is that New Criticism makes a much harder attempt to be "right" and claims all sorts of authority for itself and its interpretations.

So... on to the main point: Do video games have an author?

It could go either way, really. I would argue that almost all indie games have a very easily identifiable author. The real question should be: Do mainstream video games, developed by mainstream companies have an author? And more importantly: Who is it?

Let's start with the question of "Who is the Author?" Who created the first Spiderman game? You see the issue now? Spiderman wasn't originally from a video game. Spiderman was created by the genius of Stan Lee. So, I'd say he gets the credit for Spiderman. This makes the "author" of the game, which was of course based on something from another medium, a bit hazy. Just like we don't credit Christopher Nolan for making Batman.

I will argue that any game that is original, and can be traced down to a few creators who originally came up with the idea has an author. My best example: Will Wright and Sims, or Spore. Will Wright is very easily considered the visionary behind these two vastly successful game franchises, despite being produced and developed by a major game company: EA.

So, yes, video games can have an author. Yes, they are important. No, those authors are not the sole element in production.

One Read Post

In the spirit of fun and trolling, I'm going to do an experiment, and try to apply the one play mechanism to this blog post. So I'm warning everyone in advance: I'm taking this down the second I see a grade go up for it.

(Okay... not really, that would be silly)

First, check these out:
https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/505914
https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/555639
https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/555181

This post is an analysis of 3 one play games, all found on Newgrounds. What's a one play game? It's a game that you can only play once. No, I'm serious, you can only play it once (from any particular computer, or possibly IP address, or possibly as long as you save your cookies; I haven't tried to thwart the system yet). You play it through to the end, and then the game saves there, and you get stuck there, and that's it, that's all you can do. Every time you go back to that game, you will wind up in the same spot... which is usually dead. On a side note, the "Why is Johnny in an Art Game?" one isn't really a one play, it let me restart.

"But dude, how could a game like this possibly have any real play value? Isn't part of a game the fact that you can play it again and again?"

Well yes and no. I don't think you'll get much entertainment playing these three games more than once. First, let me talk about YOLO. YOLO is basically carpe diem for douchebags, and I won't touch on that further. Also, the game had some weird slow down issues... not sure if that was intentional or not... it seemed to be lagging the whole time I played it.

"Why is Johnny in an Art Game?" was next. I'm not 100% sure what was so artsy about this game. You walk through it, and you have one option of play the whole way through, and you eventually jump off of a building while your character ponders his nonsensical surroundings. The only thing this game got me wondering was "how much time till Nerd Club?"

From those two games, I got nothing. They were boring, and made me sigh in disappointment at best.

The last of the three games was interesting though. One Chance. Yes, now that game is one I might consider art (because art is subjective and I can call my chewed up pen cap art if I wanted; see last post). The premise is that you have 7 days until everything dies (how original!). There is no goal of the game, and I'd be willing to bet that there is no way to win, regardless of the choices you make in game. I didn't find it "fun," much like Warren Spector didn't find the movie History of Violence very fun. But after playing, I certainly felt intrigued by the story that gets told, and the message that the mechanics of the game along with the story delivers. Actually, it's not even a message really, it's more like a question, and if I had to define that question, I'd say it's "If you knew you only had a few days to live, what would you do in those few days?" And in playing the game, you get to answer that question, assuming of course that you take the game seriously. Here's some possible answers: "Try to stop it, even knowing that you will fill," "accept your fate and make your last few days count," "Try to stop it, but then give up when things grow more desperate."

I think that the fact that not only your character, but everyone in the game will also die changes the meaning quite a bit as well. To add more tension, it's your character's fault, and your character is in an interesting position... one in which he has a real chance of stopping it (at least in the game... you and I playing the game from an outside perspective know it's hopeless). The question changes and becomes a bit of a challenge: "With the best intentions, you bring the end of the human race, and you may be able to still reverse it, but it's unlikely. Given the limited time you have left, what do you do now?" The answers don't change much... but the thought processes behind them do. The reason I call this game a work of art is because it didn't leave me with a sense of satisfaction or failure; nor was I able to play it until I grew bored of it (which is how the one play mechanic changes it). When I finished the game, it left me thinking. And that, in my honest opinion, is what really makes art.

So with that, I think I'm satisfied. I have no intention of trying to play through it again, or looking up videos to find out the other outcomes. I believe that if I do so, that that might obscure the game author's intent.

What path did I take? I went to work a few times, trying to see what would happen... but when the character's wife died, I felt that it was time to spend the remaining time he had with his daughter instead. I took her to the park. And the next day, I had him go back to the park for the game's end.

Waste your time and read my post!

I think I'll start by saying that any article containing acronyms like "IMHO" or "LOL" or anything of that matter is probably not one of the most academic articles you can find. Furthermore, emoticons and such further the lack of usefulness to the academic community. That being said... what I am about to write is probably not going to fall under my own definition of academic articles.

O.o ... What am I reading?

... IMHO... in my honest opinion... what! Does that imply that up until now you have not been honest, or perhaps have not been presenting to us, the reader, your own opinion? Whose is it then?

Well Mr. Ebert, in my honest opinion, I think that you're compensating for your own lack of creativity by making the claims that you do. To go even further, and- correct me if I am mistaken, sir- but you are giving this critical analysis to an industry that is completely outside of your area of pseudo expertise.

Don't get me wrong, you have made several excellent points. I find that the error in your logic is that your points have very little to do with your claim. If anything, you've proven that the definition of art isn't defined at all, and can really be bent to include anything as a form of art. Despite the evidence that you bring forth to support this, your claim still aims to be that video games aren't art just because they aren't. Rich Stanton said it first... that's a circular argument.

What then determines what is art... in your honest opinion? Is it whatever you think is art? Shall you be the judge then, of every single thing and whether or not it is a work of art. I have a word for people who apply this logic: elitist. It seems to me that you just don't think anything in the video game industry is "worthy" of being art, but really only in your honest opinion.

What else can I say? Oh yes... that the argument you tried to pick apart isn't that great either. No offense to the TED talks, which are, normally, filled with some of the brightest minds I've ever heard talk.

You know what, though? I congratulate you. I haven't met or heard of a single internet troll that can spur up more pointless argument than you can. And completely by accident, too? Bravo, sir troll.

Now what do I have to say about the debate myself? Hmm... I don't care. This is one of those debates that simply will not end for a very very long time, probably longer than I have to live. Furthermore, the industry is plagued by such horrid, terrible gaming companies (terrible in the sense that, well... in my honest opinion... are evil), and for that reason, I don't think a lot of games out there should be considered artwork.

Or maybe they should be... It's not like some of the greatest artworks of all time, the Sistine Chapel for example, weren't funded by people who are not currently considered of good moral standing. At any rate, it's an argument I don't really care for. Do note, though, that pretty much every single form of media ever has eventually found its artistic side.

So... instead of wasting a few hours taking part in this trivial debate, I advise that anyone reading close this window, open a new one, and go to ArmorGames.com and enjoy one of the few moments where playing video games will be -more- productive than writing.

The Stanley Panopticon

The Stanley Parable is a fascinating little mod made to run on Half-Life 2 that I, personally, couldn't figure out how to run without getting Half-Life 2 for the life of me. The most interesting point about this game is that it's pretty much a standalone game, if you can call it a game at all. The game reads (yes, it reads... pretty much as if from a script) much like one of the interactive storybooks you might have seen or read back in grade school. That's why I'm hesitant to call it much of a game at all since it's setup is a lot more like a text in that the creator has a seemingly very specific idea in mind that he wants to get across to the reader, and he does that by telling a story, as opposed to presenting a player with a universe, and a set of goals. No, this game has no "goals" in the traditional sense of the word, as far as the concept of a goal goes in gaming, this game presents to the player something very different: options.

Yes, any games has options. In Mario, it's usually attack or dodge; in Soul Calibur, it's block or strike; in Grand Theft Auto, it's a simple "to kill, or not to kill;" and in Resident Evil it's between a machinegun, a shotgun, a handgun, and an RPG (as in a rocket propelled grenade). This game has -real- options: real in the sense that the options you take effect the outcome and even the overall message of the game. This game speaks so much to Existentialism, but this post isn't about Existentialism, is it?

This post is about Panopticism, which begs the question: what's Panopticism. Panopticism is a word... actually, it's not a word. If it were a word, you'd find it in the dictionary. Or maybe it is a word, depending on how you define the meaning of a word (what's in a word?). Panopticism is certainly an idea, or more like a concept. Basically, Panopticism is about discipline... and discipline in the sense of punishment, so more of a social discipline than a personal discipline. It's really more than that, but going into great detail on the matter would likely just get really really confusing, so if you're reading and you want to know more about Panopticism, here you go!

"So what on Earth is high brow, literary theory, and social philosophy doing in my video game?" you may ask as you're staring at the screen, wondering what I'm rambling on about. Well, the truth of the matter is, that if you're the type who sits in front of a TV and plays a mindless first person shooter like Resident Evil all day, and have no interest in English, Culture, Game Development & Design, and are more concerned about unlocking professional mode, then maybe The Stanley Parable isn't for you, but maybe, you'd do good to open up your horizons a little bit, and at least continue reading, or at the very least, take a half hour of your time and watch it get played through.

Alright so, The Stanley Parable begins with a narrator that introduces you to the story of Stanley, a desk worker who does exactly everything he's told and is perfectly happy with his life. One day, people stop telling him what to do, and after a mental breakdown, he decides to go find the other employees. That's when you take control. The narrator will continue to direct you, step by step, to the end of the game that he, the narrator, has set out for you and Stanley. Sounds boring? Right? But wait... as you take poor Stanley through, you notice that there's other pathways, hallways that lead somewhere else, and the narrator seems to be indirectly directing you in a certain direction. If you follow his instructions, he ends by expressing how free Stanley is now that he's escaped the clutches of some sort of mind control experiment.

Sounds like a good deal? But what real game, what real reader would not stop and think or wonder... "why are those other hallways and doors even in the game?" And when asking that question, one might play through again, and see what's down there. Suddenly, a very different story unfolds. This time, the narrator berates you every step of the way, expressing how stupid you are to not follow along with the original story. The narrator will eventually express how you're being punished because you just couldn't follow instructions.

The more alternate paths you take, the weirder and weirder the game gets. At a certain point, the narrator even gets "killed" and another, higher level of narration takes over. The whole game presents a few ideas to the player, or the reader. These aren't solid, stone cold ideas that one presents in a lecture, these are more questions than anything. Things that the game's maker seems to have thrown out there for the reader to reflect upon, rather than making a point.

So where does discipline fit into it? Well, the idea behind a "panopticon" which is where the term Panopticism comes from, is a prison in which a central guard can see everything (from the Latin words Pan, meaning all, everything, etc. and Optic, having to do with sight). So the idea driving the game is that a central narrator figure is with you the whole way through, watching your every step and trying to encourage you to make a choice towards his goal, and punish you for not making it, either mentally, emotionally, or physically. In one section of the game, the narrator even fades away, and seems to completely vanish from the game. The game then starts over, and you are free to explore its every aspect without the narrative voice telling you how things are supposed to happen, and additionally, without all of the doors you go through closing behind you, which happens in every other variation of the story line. Only at the end, the narrator reveals that he was following you all along, but that he, basically, had just shut up and let you go through the game on your own for a little bit. After that time is up, the narrator takes a moment to discuss the nature of freedom, and what exactly it entails, wrapping up the game in a way that concludes the maker's thoughts on the matter, as presented throughout the game through the voice of the narrator, and the play style of the game.

Kafka: Before Existentialism

Franz Kafka: The Law: The Flash Game: The Existence of them

Okay, so now I have to look at Kafkas work, and the video game made based on his work in an existential light. Before I even begin to discuss the actual content of them, I'm going to point out the existential irony of essence and existence present in the very existence of the game. We have Franz Kafka, who may or may not be a creation of God Almighty, and could quite possibly be the existence after the essence that this strange being in the sky has made up, who is a man, who exists. And he has created a short story (in fact, he has created lots of these) called "The Law." The short story didn't exist until he created it, which was in his head, which at that time was just the essence of the story. And then it did exist, a story of his creation. The story then gained essence as decided by his readers, who didn't ever get a chance to actually read his works until he stopped existing, and his dick friend and attorney buddy decided to keep his works from not existing, which he specifically requested to be destroyed in his will. So because of what some reader got out of that, they came up with a new idea, a flash game, and the whole process started all over again. There you go, existentialism in the making.

Alright, now for the content of the story and the game. We have this man. And he's a boring man, from a country, who has come to see THE LAW (dun dun dun). Why? We don't know... it seems his entire purpose is to try and get to see it, much like how many young girls exist entirely to see Justin Beiber in concert. The law is... this thing... this idea. It's not really anything more than that, and I could prove it in an existential fashion: we never see the law, and what it's comprised of never actually gets written down, it never exists, and since no content of this mysterious law ever comes to light, it doesn't exist. So we have this... non-exist, non-real, arbitrary thing called the law, which I'm going to call "thing," because that's all it is, is a thing, we don't know what it is. And this man, who does exist, has defined himself by it. In a way, this thing has become his essence, presumably of his own volition (except of course the fact that he's a character in a story who actually does not have any free will from our perspective... in his world, he does). Aaaaaaaaand viola! Existentialism: a man who makes the conscious decision to be defined by this essence- and not only himself, but notice: the guard is also now defined by the law, because the guard is one of many, individual to this one specific man So the guard's entire essence revolves around the same thing as the man; and if the man had not made the conscious choice to define himself by it, the guard would not be defined by it himself. -or- A man who spends his entire life writing stories, and makes every conscious decision possible to -not- be defined by them... except for actually writing them, which becomes his downfall, and now has his essence defined by the one thing he absolutely did not want to be defined by.

Kafka: The Law

Franz Kafka: The Law: The Flash Game
My Rating: B-Boring
Length: about 30 seconds...

It's a rather short game, not much to it. There's a total of two endings, which is fascinating for a game that only has two controls, I think. The game starts with a single, rather blank character with no known background except that he is some sort of foreigner to the law, or perhaps just the place where the law is kept. He walks forward with one of the controls, and meets a gatekeeper who tells him, in these words exactly, "Yo, you can't go through right now" (or something like that)

So then you have the option of waiting until you die (which goes along the lines of the orginal Kafka story), or proceeding through the gate and seeing the law, which is presented on an earthen pedastool. Other than that, there's nothing really very noteworthy. The core message of the story changes if you don't wait... since the whole point of obeying the guard and waiting for the law was a depiction of a lawful person who always ends up waiting for the law to benefit him, and it never does. The new theme seems to be that in order to get the "law" to work for you, you yhave to break some rules to begin with. Both of the stories really point to the unfairness of modern society and feels like a bit of a short rant in story form from a disgruntled old guy.