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.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Sunday, September 30, 2012
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)