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.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
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.
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)
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)
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, September 21, 2012
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."
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."
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, September 10, 2012
One Read Post
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,
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.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
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.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)