p.s. I admit I watched sci-fi films and TV dramas that I'm so into it.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Mind-controlled games
In the lecture, Kevin talks about how weird and robotic the character acts like in games when we use control buttons, and how immersion breaks down when we as gamers trying to figure out how to perform certain moves but sometimes fail to do so. There is a slowdown from what we see to how we react, and from making decision to moving our fingers to press the buttons. It is a hindrance not to be able to precise movements in games, not to mention the awkwardness of controlling a character in games using a controller or a keyboard and a mouse. I am just thinking if we could diminish the use of such devices and utilise some sort of mind-detection device to control the movements. A quick Google search brings me to this (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304707604577426251091339254.html). And this (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/thought-control-headset-reads-you-mind/). This seems to be only happening in sci-fi but who knows when this tech becomes mature and becomes possible to mass produce. Perhaps with a pair of gaming glasses, immersion could greatly increase to a level that gamers actually step inside the game's environment (Inception?). And this does relates to how technology or hacking shapes the development of videogames.
p.s. I admit I watched sci-fi films and TV dramas that I'm so into it.
p.s. I admit I watched sci-fi films and TV dramas that I'm so into it.
Ode to the Old
I was a happy wee girl when I opened my Play Station One for Christmas. With it I got Tomb Raider, Crash Bandicoot, Gran Turismo and my favourite of all - Spyro: Year of the Dragon.
I played it frequently and some of my boy mates from primary who were more experienced 'gamers' would laugh at me while playing. I assumed it was because my skills were not honed to win every time but really, it was because I would move sideways as I directed Spyro the little purple dragon where to go.
Not only would I move with the controller direction without realising it, I would exhale every time I instructed Spyro to breath fire. This meant that every time Spyro was fending off his enemies I would wind up completely out of breath and completely exhausted. From my memory I remembered actually feeling dizzy after this part of the game (plus the guy who is narrating sounds really funny):
Watch from 1.20
After last week’s lecture I realised I must have been very immersed in the video game and totally sucked in by its immediacy, even though I was controlling a little purple dragon through mystical fantasy worlds collecting dragon eggs...
I became 'incorporated' (Gordon Calleja) with Spyro physically and emotionally. I was physically tired after a battle and when Spyro didn't win I felt an emotion to go with the result.
This is intriguing in hindsight too as the graphics are certainly not very advanced and there were plenty of technical glitches, yet this didn't get in the way of my immersion in the game at all.
Since then new Play Station models and consoles have been invented, each slightly better than the last. One of the technical developments was the addition of a gear stick on the controller. I didn't approve of this addition so continued with my four directional buttons until Play Station decided it would cause glitches in the game if you didn't use the gearstick like they intended.
I have never been one to keep up with the latest technology (I still think the iPhone 3 is perfectly efficient) but I do have to admit that video games have come a long way. The Play Station 3 graphics are incredibly realistic and there are so many twists and options. Even the Wii is pretty amazing. The fact the character on the screen reacts to what the controllers actions are pretty amazing.
Even with all this in consideration I still have to say, my favourite console was the Nintendo 64, even with the incredibly basic graphics.
So much so that I hunted one down on Trade Me two years ago along with Mario Kart and set up weekly game nights with my friends. Ode to the traditional technology that allows you to stay completely immersed!
Structural Incoherence, Age and Immersion
These days, video games seem to be focusing more and more on realism, both in terms of the graphics and also in terms of what the player is capable of doing, probably to market the games to an older audience and also to remove structural incoherence. If structural incoherence disrupts immersion, then that is probably one of the reasons why video games are trying to add realism.
However, recently I've recently been playing some older games from the Playstation/Nintendo 64 era and lo and behold, structural incoherence everywhere. Crash Bandicoot can scuba dive yet dies when he falls into a river. James Bond's villains get alerted whenever you fire an unsilenced gun but if you kill one of them with a silenced gun, their comrades just walk right past it as if nothing happened.
Pokemon is by far the worst culprit. How in the hell can creatures who can burn things, create earthquakes and slash things not be able to cut down a fucking tree? But when I played these games when I was younger, I got very immersed. I didn't even question how I could surf on a Horsea.
I don't play many games anymore but I'm sure a lot of more recent games aimed at a younger demographic are choc full of inconsistencies because younger people take less notice of them. At least to me, the game play and, to a lesser extent, the narrative were more important. Going back to Pokemon, the game had a good enough (though incredibly unrealistic) story to go with a fun RPG-style game play. It wasn't until I was older that I started thinking some of those required uses for HMs were stupid.
Back then due to technological constraints, it was probably a lot more difficult to prevent such structural incoherences. But back then, to our younger minds, it probably made a lot less of a difference. It's not until we play them again when older that they become more visible.
However, recently I've recently been playing some older games from the Playstation/Nintendo 64 era and lo and behold, structural incoherence everywhere. Crash Bandicoot can scuba dive yet dies when he falls into a river. James Bond's villains get alerted whenever you fire an unsilenced gun but if you kill one of them with a silenced gun, their comrades just walk right past it as if nothing happened.
Pokemon is by far the worst culprit. How in the hell can creatures who can burn things, create earthquakes and slash things not be able to cut down a fucking tree? But when I played these games when I was younger, I got very immersed. I didn't even question how I could surf on a Horsea.
I don't play many games anymore but I'm sure a lot of more recent games aimed at a younger demographic are choc full of inconsistencies because younger people take less notice of them. At least to me, the game play and, to a lesser extent, the narrative were more important. Going back to Pokemon, the game had a good enough (though incredibly unrealistic) story to go with a fun RPG-style game play. It wasn't until I was older that I started thinking some of those required uses for HMs were stupid.
Back then due to technological constraints, it was probably a lot more difficult to prevent such structural incoherences. But back then, to our younger minds, it probably made a lot less of a difference. It's not until we play them again when older that they become more visible.
ErMahGerd Immerrsion
I noticed something when doing the readings for the week
just gone (“Heather and Me” and “Novus Homo”). I was able to pick up on the
fact that the writers of these blogs were writing them as if they were real
life and not some fictional Video Game. I found this quiet interesting especially
as this week we were looking at immersion and just how much of an effect it has
on the people that play these games.
I myself do play video games (recently purchasing Skyrim
after talking about RPG’s in class so much) but I do not have the same passion
for the games as the writers (or at least anymore) of these articles. However I
noticed one other thing after I finished the reading. As I was reading it I started
to believe that they were talking about real life and I myself got immersed in
the game just by reading it and not even playing it. I got lost in the text and
believed that real events were being described as opposed to a game. It made it
much more clear to me about the power of immersion in these games.
Now after playing Skyrim for all of yesterday and only
reaching Level 5 I can see how people get immersed, especially in RPG’s. I
found myself not wanting to ‘steal’ or fight people who weren’t attacking me,
this however did not last long. I soon began to act the complete opposite way
to what I would in real life. I believe that Skyrim allowed me to act in a way
that I would not in real life and it separated completely my real life from my
online life as I was acting like a different person. It just made me realise
the power of immersion in these game and I found it really interesting.
Immersion and Affect in Slender
) that shows how many players of this game become so engrosed in playing this game. This game also shows situated immersion as many players deeply involved in the space of the game that when they lose (i.e get caught by the slender man) many of the players get quite a jump scare. These two aspects fit well with the theory of immersion as given by Laurie N. Taylor. "
I will define it here as Diegetic immersion where the player is immersedin the act of playing the video game, and as intra-diegetic or situated immersion, where the player is immersed in playing the game and in the experience of the game space as a spatial and narrated space."
This game also shows the concept of affect. Like many horror games this game creates Affect of dread and fear. This game dose its job well in the way that creates potiential mood of horror. This can be seen from its game structure. you see in this game there are no iteams to gain apart from that 8 papers. As such there is nothing to stop the slender man from getting you. This plus the fact that you are in a dark creepy forest with very little light ( that has limited power source.) can give you forbidding scence of dread and scare when slender man catches you. This also goese with the world of concern. As it is horror game, only thing you are concerned about is your own survival. The game screen shows this by having a clear view with dark shadows. There is nothing apart from some small building and trees which renforces the fact that you are all alone. These aspects of world of concern helps to create affect of dread in the game.
This game also shows the concept of affect. Like many horror games this game creates Affect of dread and fear. This game dose its job well in the way that creates potiential mood of horror. This can be seen from its game structure. you see in this game there are no iteams to gain apart from that 8 papers. As such there is nothing to stop the slender man from getting you. This plus the fact that you are in a dark creepy forest with very little light ( that has limited power source.) can give you forbidding scence of dread and scare when slender man catches you. This also goese with the world of concern. As it is horror game, only thing you are concerned about is your own survival. The game screen shows this by having a clear view with dark shadows. There is nothing apart from some small building and trees which renforces the fact that you are all alone. These aspects of world of concern helps to create affect of dread in the game.
Rock of Ages
I only just kind of grasped the meaning of situated immersion in tutorial this week. What I understand is that it is when you are in the space of the game in relation to the space of the game. Also that you react within the game. My question is, do you have to be a person or an animal or a living thing? Do you need to be able to see your body? I ask this because a while ago I was introduced to this ps3 game (probably available on other consoles as well) called Rock of Ages and being the kind of person that only plays straight forward piss easy games, I really enjoyed this one.
This is a game where you are basically a rock (in third person/rock trailing perspective), well actually a god's hand controlling the rock but you thats irrelevant because all you really see is the rock. Using the analogue stick you roll/drive the rock with your invisible forces to over come obstacles and knock down the door at the end of the track and squish the person inside. At the same time an enemy rock is doing the same thing and trying to smash your door and squish your person. crashing into enemy obstacles give you money but also weakens your rock making it smaller and therefore needing more attempts to smash the door. In between rolling you must also build obstacles for the opponent using a top down perspective. The first one to squish the other one wins. There are a variety of tracks you can choose to play.
Watch from around 2min point
How this relates to the idea of situated immersion is that despite being although as the rock you feel a sense of situated immersion, it seems ambiguous who or what you actually are; whether you are the rock, drive the rock, or just oversee construction and battle. If not all the aspects of your playing involve you being in the game, is it still situated immersion that is happening? Or can you say that is this game you experience 'moments' of situated immersion?
ahhh word vomit...have a good weekend all!
This is a game where you are basically a rock (in third person/rock trailing perspective), well actually a god's hand controlling the rock but you thats irrelevant because all you really see is the rock. Using the analogue stick you roll/drive the rock with your invisible forces to over come obstacles and knock down the door at the end of the track and squish the person inside. At the same time an enemy rock is doing the same thing and trying to smash your door and squish your person. crashing into enemy obstacles give you money but also weakens your rock making it smaller and therefore needing more attempts to smash the door. In between rolling you must also build obstacles for the opponent using a top down perspective. The first one to squish the other one wins. There are a variety of tracks you can choose to play.
How this relates to the idea of situated immersion is that despite being although as the rock you feel a sense of situated immersion, it seems ambiguous who or what you actually are; whether you are the rock, drive the rock, or just oversee construction and battle. If not all the aspects of your playing involve you being in the game, is it still situated immersion that is happening? Or can you say that is this game you experience 'moments' of situated immersion?
ahhh word vomit...have a good weekend all!
Friday, January 18, 2013
Links of Relevance
Greetings all!
I stumbled onto some things that are very-tangentially-related to the course.
The first is a webcomic about casual games.
And the second is a browser game which can eat up a staggering amount of time. It's also glorious to see people get really competitive with it and Just Keep Playing. (When the screen loads, it offers to let you play the sequel on Facebook. SHUN IT since the sequel is a crap and tries to get you to give it money in that Farmville way.)
- Kevin
I stumbled onto some things that are very-tangentially-related to the course.
The first is a webcomic about casual games.
And the second is a browser game which can eat up a staggering amount of time. It's also glorious to see people get really competitive with it and Just Keep Playing. (When the screen loads, it offers to let you play the sequel on Facebook. SHUN IT since the sequel is a crap and tries to get you to give it money in that Farmville way.)
- Kevin
Easily amused
Since being shown this... super... hexagon... game, I have become so addicted to it that I just play it during breaks to fill the boredom. I've noticed that when ever I get game over and mash the spacebar to play again, the voice from the game saying "again" makes me feel very guilty and taken aback from playing. It makes me feel guilty since I could be filling my time with more important things - such as studying for maths.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
World of concern
Game physics has its own limitations as the space where each individual character and player outside the game has their own world of concern. This is also the subjectivity of the "character" in the game as this exceeds the identity of the person as identity is trying to pin down one's characteristics, but the objects defines the player's position in the game like the example in today's lecture with or without the gun affects accessibility as without, the character in which you are playing is simply a man, but with a gun, your character is a gunman. For example, in first person shooter games such as the Call of Duty series, the aim of the first person point of view is to simulate reality, whilst with a third person view in games such as the Gears of War series, the game is to show a broader vision of the games universe and dimensions. In the first person shooters where you're put in a situation in which you have to hide behind a say, couch, you cannot see if there is anyone or anything approaching you from the other side of the said couch much like real life, giving players a better simulation of reality. But in third person shooters, if you are to hind behind a couch you can see environmental changes that are happening around you from a certain spectrum, such as grass moving in the wind, which does not affect bullet velocity or temperatures of your character. It simply does what it is programmed to do, the wind is not a force of nature, unlike real life, it is simply a gimmick to create a false dimension of reality to broaden the experience of the game
These worlds of concern very from gamer player to player player and when you think about what you actually can and can't do gets very frustrating so you have no choice but learn to adapt within the games rules.
These worlds of concern very from gamer player to player player and when you think about what you actually can and can't do gets very frustrating so you have no choice but learn to adapt within the games rules.
WHILE WE'RE ON THE TOPIC OF ADDICTIVE INTERNET FLASH GAMES...
Following up on the Tutorial today where Kevin showed us a demo of the mind-fuckingly intense looking game "Hexagon".
http://distractionware.com/games/flash/hexagon/ (Try it, I dare you, my record is about 6 seconds)
The gameplay demo alone had me all tensed up, watching as this poor little triangle attempts to make a desperate bid for freedom while in constant danger of being squashed by giant hexagons. These aren't your regular giant, triangle crushing hexagons however, oh no, these hexagons hate the player, these hexagons change colour in sporadic flashes, their size changes, and their shape seldom remains the same.
If that all seems like a walk on the beach for you, just wait until you hear the music! Whack on a pair of your favourite Beats by Dre and tell me you're diegtically immersed then... The background music is like something reminiscent of a 1990's warehouse party in the back streets of Bristol; ab-so-lute-ly excruciating.
However, as soon as we were subject to this visual and aural atrocity I had to fight back the urge to yell out "ZOMG WHAT ABOUT SQUARES 2"!!!
This, my friends, is a cleaner, friendlier, more enjoyable 21st century version of Hexagon...
INTRODUCING....
SQUARES 2
SQUARES: Hexagons sexier, trendier, smarter, all-round GC little brother. And lets be honest, what kind of God-send/game allows you the pleasure of listening to Daft Punk - Revolution 909 ON REPEAT.
To conclude - I personally was unable to be diegtically immersed with Hexagon as I was immediately put off by it's music, graphic quality, and how hard the game was itself. I feel like Squares 2 is everything that this style of game aspires to be - FUN; almost to the point where you could make it a social event (/drinking game), pinning your mates up against each other trying to get catch more squares than your annoying friend who's yelling too loudly. CHALLENGING; without being depressingly hard, granted you will never 'win' (or at least I won't), but you will always strive to beat your previous score thus being the best you can be. DIEGETICALLY ENGROSSING; I have lost count of times in my youth where I would spend literally countless hours saying 'oh I'll just try one more time to beat my high score', so engrossed in the game my parents would think I've gone to bed, next thing I knew my eyes were stinging from lack of blinking and it was 2am. This was my go-to game on my gutless windows '98 computer whom would frequently stall trying to load up "SkiFree". (Just on a small tangent - when Kevin was talking about how you physically freak out and move, being "situationally" immersed - I would literally lose my shit every time that yeti appeared on the screen, it was bloody stressful! Anyway, I digress...)
A perfect balance of paideia and ludus, I score Squares 2 a 9.4/10
FTVMS - what do you think?
 |
| SkiFree (how's that for nostalgia) |
A perfect balance of paideia and ludus, I score Squares 2 a 9.4/10
FTVMS - what do you think?
Mary Poppins' Bag? IDK
Anyone ever think it was kinda weird in Lord of the Rings that these giant eagles would aid in fights against orcs and other treacherous creatures, yet they didn't think of using them to fly Frodo to Mordor to destroy the ring?? Then do you spend a good conversation with someone trying to come up with justifications as to how this mis-match could fit into the diegesis? "Maybe the 'eye' can detect the power of the ring better when it's in the air so it's far too dangerous for Frodo?" "Maybe the flock of eagles like to stay neutral and not pick sides?" We all know that if the eagles DID fly Frodo to Mordor it would be a very short film, but that's not the point. When films have these lapses in their story lines I always think it would have been better if they just slip in a simple explanation and we can all move on. Yet, they tend to think if they don't draw particular attention to the structural incoherence that the audience will overlook it or accept it as a flaw.
When it comes to gaming I think there are many things that are left unexplained, and being the annoying person I am, I need to find a suitable justification for the problem. When I saw this, it made me happy I wasn't the only one:
In class we have been talking about how a sense of immersion can be broken once an aspect of the game presents something that doesn't realistically make sense. However, in some cases I think we overlook the incoherence BECAUSE we are so immersed, especially when our world of concern is fixated on other matters.
For example, in games like Call of Duty you are given a wide selection of guns you can alternate between while you are in battle. It could be seen as structurally incoherent as you wonder how one man can hold so many guns at one time. Players may notice this incoherence at first, but who would be thinking about that once there are 50 guys shooting at your head? Your world of concern is concentrating on killing as many people as you can and therefore are distracted from "How the hell am i holding so many guns!?" The game is so fast-paced in nature that often I think players wouldn't have time to think of such things, and during gameplay I'm sure it would be considered a low priority. Yet most combat games include the multiple selection of guns and it has become such a common flaw that gamers most likely accept this as an incoherent feature and still become totally immersed in the diegesis of the game.
This links well with what Lauren Taylor says about consistencies inside the game. She says "Diegetic immersion requires that the game have a consistent world, so that the player is not forced from immersion by inconsistencies of the game space." (Pg. 14) In relation to the multiple gun feature in many games, so long as they keep this consistent within the game space (as well as maybe within the genre of combat games) then players can continue to be immersed without inconsistencies. Therefore, if it's a consistent structural incoherence then players will be immersed and happy.
However, I think in some games, providing a consistent flaw throughout the game can still detract from immersion. In Hitman Absolution, I couldn't help but notice that on every mission, where it be in a corn field, in a library, or in a hotel room, there seems to be massive storage bins everywhere you go. Clearly it is to conveniently dispose of the bodies, but in ways it is so unrealistic that it breaks any form of immersion from occurring. Call of Duty and other shooting games can be wavered with their multiple guns features as it's just a solution to accommodate the needs of the game in the most practical way possible. But with Hitman I feel designers are rather lazy or lack innovation as they could easily create other forms of 'disposal' without breaking the players immersion in the game.
It could go either way really.
When it comes to gaming I think there are many things that are left unexplained, and being the annoying person I am, I need to find a suitable justification for the problem. When I saw this, it made me happy I wasn't the only one:
For example, in games like Call of Duty you are given a wide selection of guns you can alternate between while you are in battle. It could be seen as structurally incoherent as you wonder how one man can hold so many guns at one time. Players may notice this incoherence at first, but who would be thinking about that once there are 50 guys shooting at your head? Your world of concern is concentrating on killing as many people as you can and therefore are distracted from "How the hell am i holding so many guns!?" The game is so fast-paced in nature that often I think players wouldn't have time to think of such things, and during gameplay I'm sure it would be considered a low priority. Yet most combat games include the multiple selection of guns and it has become such a common flaw that gamers most likely accept this as an incoherent feature and still become totally immersed in the diegesis of the game.
This links well with what Lauren Taylor says about consistencies inside the game. She says "Diegetic immersion requires that the game have a consistent world, so that the player is not forced from immersion by inconsistencies of the game space." (Pg. 14) In relation to the multiple gun feature in many games, so long as they keep this consistent within the game space (as well as maybe within the genre of combat games) then players can continue to be immersed without inconsistencies. Therefore, if it's a consistent structural incoherence then players will be immersed and happy.
However, I think in some games, providing a consistent flaw throughout the game can still detract from immersion. In Hitman Absolution, I couldn't help but notice that on every mission, where it be in a corn field, in a library, or in a hotel room, there seems to be massive storage bins everywhere you go. Clearly it is to conveniently dispose of the bodies, but in ways it is so unrealistic that it breaks any form of immersion from occurring. Call of Duty and other shooting games can be wavered with their multiple guns features as it's just a solution to accommodate the needs of the game in the most practical way possible. But with Hitman I feel designers are rather lazy or lack innovation as they could easily create other forms of 'disposal' without breaking the players immersion in the game.
It could go either way really.
Immersion and gender
In regards to the game Amnesia shown at the end of the
lecture today and the idea of the fear and dread being created as the protagonists
hears the girl screaming, I was wondering if they have games where the girl is
the hero who has to save the man? When I was watching the clip I was
nervous for both the protagonist and the unknown women, and when reading Gaming
Made Me – Tomb Raider, it made me realize how women are seen to be too fragile
and that the world is too “dangerous” for them to be by themselves. The author Ellison
draws on these ideas in relation to Lara Croft and I was wondering if this had
anything to do with the masculine idea of males instinct to protect women.
When playing the Cecil games and trying to understand them I
found that the issue of gender is everywhere. In the games Ben There, Dan That
and Frostbite, they have either male protagonists or a masculine robot. Are
there more female protagonists in video games now in the 2000's or are the
heroes still dominantly males? Would a female protagonist make particular games
less appealing to men?
Masculinity and femininity is such a large part of video
games and they seem to parallel issues in society. If you are a female and you
are playing a video game with a male protagonist, does that damage your level of
immersion within the game and vice versa for men?
GUNS GUNS GUNS
Unless you have been living under a rock for the past few weeks
you will have heard about the recent shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School
which is the most recent of these terrible incidents. Some claim that it is the
fault of violent video games. Some claim it was down to mental illness. While I
do agree that it is relevant to have a conversation about the state of mental
illness treatment in the United States, this thread of discussion seems to be
taking the spotlight away from the clear lack of gun control in the United
States and the clear prejudice in the media against the game entertainment
industry that happens to feature some violence. In 2010 alone, there were
104,000 gun related deaths and injuries. Can anyone else see the problem here?
Because the ‘right to bear arms’ is part of the constitution, many are willing
to defend this right to the end, as seen with the National Rifle Association’s
Alex Jones:
On top of this VERY LOUD debate, the National Rifle
Association has declared videogames to blame for violent mass shootings, and
then RELEASE THEIR OWN SHOOTING GAME for iPad and iPhone. (http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/nra-video-game-sparks-anger-20130116-2ctpv.html)
…
(Srsly guys??)
President Obama has made an appeal for research to be made
to determine whether there is a link between video game violence, violence in
the media and real-life violence. The outcome of this research could be the end
of gaming as the scapegoat for all violent crime. Who knows, perhaps it’s down
to the fact that every night we get the details of someone’s body found in the
river. Or it could be attributed to the way we idolize Die Hard’s John McClane
walking away from an explosion leaving a trail of cartridges. The other outcome
of such a study could be that video games actually do result in violent
actions. If it does, what will happen? Age restrictions? No more GTA? International
Tetris leagues only?
Even before the verdict comes out, if a child is virtually
popping caps without learning the consequences of such actions in reality, we’re
gonna have a bad time. But does that translate into reality? Whether or not
game violence is linked to mass killings, I feel I can safely say that after
playing GTA or Saints Row that I have no desire to stab, maim or shoot anyone,
and this probably goes for the majority or we’d all be dead by now. Actually, I
feel my most violent after playing Happy Fall. Fin.
Sophie McGuinness
Digital Smart Ass
It is Christmas Day and I am faced with my gremlin for an eight year old nephew. He and his equally as spoilt five year old brother were given iPods from Jesus Santa (my sister) and proceeded to spend their week long stay in Auckland on the couch hocking my mothers Internet and downloading as many apps as they could, purchasing game after game with their multitudes of iTunes cards.
"What a waste," I had sniped to Mama, "they don't even listen to music that isn't church hymns or Rihanna."
"They don't use them for music, they use them to play games." Oh okay, that's cool.
So it was a nice day but I mostly just wanted the living room to myself when I said, "when I was your age I didn't have an iPod to monopolise all my time."
"When you were my age iPods didn't exist."
Well, shit. You got me there kid.
I started babbling on about how I had a SEGA, a Playstation, a Gameboy Colour, and how they are the equivalents to what the iPod is now (at least in the way these boys are using them) but how I still managed to get off my ass and go outside. These games and consoles I was raised on encouraged my imagination to the point that I would create my own worlds, go exploring in forests and enact a game within the real world -- how many of us became water Pokemon in our friends pools?-- and have perhaps had a greater inspirational impact on me than film or literature. Now, of course, my argument was wasted because he went back to his iPod games and becoming a pixelated zombie.
This recent generation of kids born in the 2nd Millennium baffle me. They are an entirely different species in how un-phased they are by the technology which surrounds them, they expect and they understand, and obviously not every child is this way, everything is situational, but a lot of them are siphoned to their virtual worlds. Now it would be hypocritical of me on so many different levels to be anti videogames but I can see how behaviour like that of my oldest nephew is regressive or unhealthy. Maybe I'm just a judgmental super bitch of an aunt but there needs to be a balance. But why do I think there needs to be a balance?
How do those of you who consider themselves "gamers" view this? And those of you who don't? Perhaps this is a case of too much of a good thing can warp you into a serial killer, but to be playing videogames from morning until evening at the ages of five and eight seems excessive and, frankly, like a waste of the youth many of us wish we could return to and, eventually, my nephews will too.
Wow, that didn't mean to take such a depressing turn.
"What a waste," I had sniped to Mama, "they don't even listen to music that isn't church hymns or Rihanna."
"They don't use them for music, they use them to play games." Oh okay, that's cool.
So it was a nice day but I mostly just wanted the living room to myself when I said, "when I was your age I didn't have an iPod to monopolise all my time."
"When you were my age iPods didn't exist."
Well, shit. You got me there kid.
I started babbling on about how I had a SEGA, a Playstation, a Gameboy Colour, and how they are the equivalents to what the iPod is now (at least in the way these boys are using them) but how I still managed to get off my ass and go outside. These games and consoles I was raised on encouraged my imagination to the point that I would create my own worlds, go exploring in forests and enact a game within the real world -- how many of us became water Pokemon in our friends pools?-- and have perhaps had a greater inspirational impact on me than film or literature. Now, of course, my argument was wasted because he went back to his iPod games and becoming a pixelated zombie.
This recent generation of kids born in the 2nd Millennium baffle me. They are an entirely different species in how un-phased they are by the technology which surrounds them, they expect and they understand, and obviously not every child is this way, everything is situational, but a lot of them are siphoned to their virtual worlds. Now it would be hypocritical of me on so many different levels to be anti videogames but I can see how behaviour like that of my oldest nephew is regressive or unhealthy. Maybe I'm just a judgmental super bitch of an aunt but there needs to be a balance. But why do I think there needs to be a balance?
How do those of you who consider themselves "gamers" view this? And those of you who don't? Perhaps this is a case of too much of a good thing can warp you into a serial killer, but to be playing videogames from morning until evening at the ages of five and eight seems excessive and, frankly, like a waste of the youth many of us wish we could return to and, eventually, my nephews will too.
Wow, that didn't mean to take such a depressing turn.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Listening?
Considering Immersion through video game structure and visual design got me thinking another integral element. Sound.
Surely the soundscapes, tones, character voices and background music have a significant impact in drawing gamers into an immersive experience. Sure the narrative and visual's are crucial, but sound is an important component.
Early games were heard on low-fi desktop computer speakers, and sound was limited to loops that served to reinforce the pace of the game and help provide signposts to success or disaster. There was little room for nuance.
"Guitar Hero" is a video game where sound is at it's core. It evolved out from cover versions of music to including original versions of Queen, Nirvana, Aerosmith etc tracks. Playing along with the authentic versions is a more satisfying Air Guitar moment than some crude sound-a-like.
Today gamers can fill a room and beyond with bone rattling sound to match the images on their big screen TV's. The sound design is more complex and layered providing more cues to the narrative.
Players can choose nominated soundtracks to match their preferences. Sport's Games mimic the big arena rumble, squeak of shoes on the court and use the voices of recognised athletes and broadcasters. We have Jay-Z curating the soundtrack to NBA 2k13
Are there sounds that feature in video games that have been implanted in the back of your head, never to be removed?
To jog the memory I found this compilation of the ten most iconic video game sound effects of all time from joystick division.
Hardcore addiction, casual addiction?
The immortal words of Jenna Marbles sum up my feelings about casual gaming and apps. I do my best to avoid apps and games of any kind. This is because, like a drug addict, I eventually become an obsessed, bushy-tailed and bright-eyed Smeagol who cannot pull away from Angry Birds or Pokemon Silver emulator. Marbles describes her taste for game apps as an "addiction" and "a real problem" because they occupy too much of her time.
I realize 'addiction' will be properly covered later in this course. In any case, I find this interesting in relation to the hardcore vs. casual gamer binary. As a casual gamer, who also had a very real addiction to AB and Pokemon, I've always considered hardcore gamers to be more apt to addiction. Or even, that being a gamer type automatically insinuated addiction. This was, admittedly, an unfounded assumption and part of the gamer stereotype held in my mind. And wouldn't you know it, I didn't confront this double standard until starting this course.
I'm not alone, either. I've found that this assumption is held by many others in my social circles; none of them are gamers. Alas, there's a trend. Casual gamers can become addicted, but they recognize their problem when it starts to take over their lives. Avid gamers are ipso facto addicted to their games. NB: I realize it's not that simple, just boiling it down to the essence of this double standard.
What do you guys, hardcores and casuals alike, think of this? Am I off base? Anyone else share these thoughts?
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
PC Games vs. PlayStation Games
I feel like my opinion that PlayStation games are better than PC games is validated because I have played both and have come to the conclusion that, yes, PlayStation games are better. This statement may be contrary to popular opinion, BUT it is my opinion. And perhaps my opinion is a little bias because I have played PlayStation games since I was a kid and only recently did I start playing computer games. I played Call of Duty on the computer and I did not understand it at all. I was told what buttons to use and how to shoot people, then the game started and I'm in a war zone. I start running around and I get shot a few times so I start shooting back and I completely miss. Then I'm dead. In the short space of 5 minutes that I have played I don't know what my mission is, I don't know the point of the game, and I haven't done anything but run away and get shot a dozen times. So I play again and this time I see someone and shoot away and they're dead! Yay me. I've finally shot someone and I'm pretty impressed, only to find out that I've killed my own team member. Now I'm really frustrated and confused and angry and that is probably a good combination of feelings to have when you're about to play a game which requires you to shoot people. So I use my mixed emotions to motivate me and by now I am ready to go in and attack. I get out there and hide behind a few walls, through a few bombs, shoot a few people, but as soon as I run out into the open there's a helicopter above me that kills me in an instant. I play this for a while - longer than I would usually spend playing games. At the end of my playing I have found neither enjoyment nor pleasure and figure that I have just wasted my time. What was it that didn't work for me in this game? I didn't know the point of it. Was I shooting people just for the sake of it? What was the character supposed to achieve? I just didn't get it. The game wasn't explained to me and it seems to me that PC games assume that the players know what they are supposed to do and the skills that they need.
I began playing the PlayStation when I was a kid. We had the PlayStation One, the PS2, and then the xBox 360. However, as technology has advanced it has become more complicated and so I definitely prefer to play the PlayStation. I played Ratchet and Clank yesterday for the first time in a while. But it was simple. The game was familiar to me and the instructions were made clear from the beginning. Before the game started we had to watch a short animated clip telling us the story and what our mission was and the things we had to do to accomplish it. Further instructions were given throughout the game and the environment seemed a lot more relaxed and I actually found it fun!
Now I'm sure people will read this and think "well your judgment isn't quite valid because you are comparing an R-16 war game to an animated children's PlayStation game." Well that is a valid statement to make and I probably can't argue with that. But even with other PC games (casual games more than anything else) that I have played I have found PlayStation games to be more enjoyable. I went to the Internet Cafe with my boyfriend and his friends. They spent about 4 hours playing Black Ops 2. Wow. That was a pretty intense environment. I could see most, if not all, of those who were playing were on the verge of diegetic immersion. It was crazy. They were yelling at each other and banging on the keyboard and I was going mental just watching them. I suppose people playing PlayStation games get into this element as well.
But PC games, to me, definitely have a different feeling to them compared to PlayStation games and I wouldn't want to offend anyone by carrying on, because it is only my opinion.
I began playing the PlayStation when I was a kid. We had the PlayStation One, the PS2, and then the xBox 360. However, as technology has advanced it has become more complicated and so I definitely prefer to play the PlayStation. I played Ratchet and Clank yesterday for the first time in a while. But it was simple. The game was familiar to me and the instructions were made clear from the beginning. Before the game started we had to watch a short animated clip telling us the story and what our mission was and the things we had to do to accomplish it. Further instructions were given throughout the game and the environment seemed a lot more relaxed and I actually found it fun!
Now I'm sure people will read this and think "well your judgment isn't quite valid because you are comparing an R-16 war game to an animated children's PlayStation game." Well that is a valid statement to make and I probably can't argue with that. But even with other PC games (casual games more than anything else) that I have played I have found PlayStation games to be more enjoyable. I went to the Internet Cafe with my boyfriend and his friends. They spent about 4 hours playing Black Ops 2. Wow. That was a pretty intense environment. I could see most, if not all, of those who were playing were on the verge of diegetic immersion. It was crazy. They were yelling at each other and banging on the keyboard and I was going mental just watching them. I suppose people playing PlayStation games get into this element as well.
But PC games, to me, definitely have a different feeling to them compared to PlayStation games and I wouldn't want to offend anyone by carrying on, because it is only my opinion.
Playstation 4? Let's have a look at the PS#.
PlayStation 4? Let’s
have a look at the success of the PlayStation 3- jkin 263
As all of you may know, there are rumours on the internet
that the PlayStation 4 may be released as soon as this year. An article on
stuff.co.nz says that it could be announced in June according to a Sony executive.
The question is what differences is the PlayStation 4 going to make? Perhaps we
will have 3 dimensional available with the rise of 3D glasses being used more
and more for film and television in the last few years. Or am I being too
optimistic? When the PlayStation 3 was released there was loud anticipation for
its release. Yet despite its graphical improvement from the PlayStation 2, the PlayStation
3 lacks in originality. As Kevin mentioned in his lecture, the PlayStation 3
was unfortunately the last of its competitors to be released and it is still
slugging behind in sales with its main competitor the Xbox360. But is it being
last the only reason why it is behind in sales. Short answer is no. Firstly, we
look at the comparisons of the games available; virtually all PS3 games are
available on the Xbox360. So a customer must ask themselves would they be
willing to spend more money on the PS3 when it doesn’t offer any different
games from the Xbox? Clearly the people have spoken, and by no means is PS3 a
failure, but it certainly disappoints as it is 3rd in sales out of its
competitors. Perhaps it’s not just the price and similarities with the Xbox360
that make PS3 disappointment. Two features that annoy any player can be the
inability to play PS2 games on the PS3 despite the PS2’s own ability to play
PS1 games. So in order to live a PS2 experience a player has incentive to go
back to using that engine. That could be why the PS2 is still doing well, there
is a lack of incentive to abandon it because despite its inferiority to PS3
graphics, it’s cheaper and has more availability. The second feature that is
annoying about the PS3 is its fragility. The process of turning the PS3 off can
be a frustrating experience, unlike the PS2 where you can simply press a switch
while playing a game, if you dear do this while playing the PS3 when it is used
again you have to wait while it warns you that you turned it off wrong as you
need to turn of the game and then turn off the system. While this may seem
minor it shows the faults of the PS3 that was meant to be better than the PS2.
Yet it could be argued that either is better. The PS3 is a disappointment, so I
hate to sound pessimistic but anyone expecting the PS4 to make everyone explode
with excitement. Prepare for an eerie and silent “celebration”.
Jordyn King jkin263
Casual vs. hardcore debate
The notion of gaming has become a medium that has evolved over time into something quite brilliant. The debate between hardcore gamer vs. casual gamer has also been around since gaming became a popular hobby. I find the ongoing debate to be mildly entertaining not to mention amusing. Often hardcore gamers look down on casual gamers and vice versa. It is difficult to add any substance to the argument that hasn’t been said before. However, as a 23 year old everyday female with absolutely no idea about the in and outs of gaming, you could say I am the definition of a casual gamer. There are so many ways to define a casual gamer as it is such a broad term but I think It is easy to see from a casual gamers point of view as I fit the threshold quite well.
I found the funniest definition on the Internet of casual gamers. It literally speaks for itself and the opinion that a lot of real gamers have.
The definition of a casual gamer:
“What kills the game industry? Equivalent of someone who plays Farmville. Some games they play. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. ShovelMcShovelWare 17 Wii. Any Intellivision game.”
Kevin’s lecture on Thursday compared the three popular consoles- Nintendo Wii, Play station and Xbox. As of 2011, the Wi was the most popular with 90 million units sold worldwide. This is incredible as the Wii is the casual gamers console. However, I was not remotely surprised.
Nintendo Wii has become a bit of a hit and miss in the gaming world. It is interesting that learning from the lecture, Nintendo formed a partnership with Sony but backed out at the last minute. To see Sony completely change the gaming world with the play station was incredible, but then to see Nintendo come back with the wii makes the whole gaming world even more interesting. Nintendo specifically targeted the casual gamer market, and were very successful as seen in the number of consoles sold. They were clever in the fact that they didn’t try and compete with Sony and Microsoft but instead, worked alongside them. Nintendo President Satoru Iwata has admitted that this may have not been the best idea, however wii's sales say otherwise.
I purchased a Nintendo wii around Christmas time a few years back. I had no idea how to set it up. I had to get my 12-year-old niece to do it for me (!) I brought the Nintendo wii specially because it looked easy and fun. There was no violence; it wasn’t your average play station or Xbox game that reeks of difficulty that would require a lot of time and practice. I could play numerous sports as well as “wii fit” which focused on being fit and weight loss- hello! The biggest pull for woman like me in this day and age who are obsessed with their weight and wanting to lead an active lifestyle. To be able to keep fit and have fun at the same time was a dream come true for most females. I am your typical casual gamer in the fact that I do not play games much. The first game I remember playing was Alex the Kidd on Sega. I never got past the first stage. I enjoyed crash bandicoot (who didn’t!) because it was fun, simple and easy. After that I casually played Teaken, street fighter, spyro etc. That was it. So when the wii came along, it fitted perfectly.
It wasn’t just me who was buying it either. My flat mate, who was once a “hardcore” gamer also succumbed to the wonderful thing that is a wii and brought one. It still to this day sits next to his Xbox. (Gathering dust may I add). Almost everyone I know was buying the wii. A family, singles, couples. Nintendo. There were even people using it in the office. . All these people were people who are against the notion of gaming. The wii allowed them to access gaming in a much more easier way. Not to mention the notion of being active while playing a game. This brought gaming to a whole new level. Previously, gaming was seen as a lazy hobby, which involved pretty much just sitting down hours on end. Wii completely changed that. Families could enjoy time together by playing wii. A lot of families brought it for their younger children as a safe haven and a fun thing to do together. It completely opposed the whole violence issue.
I have not used my Nintendo wii since the first few weeks I brought it. Another example of a casual gamer and an example of a downfall of the wii. Perhaps I will pick it up again when friends are around. That is the beauty of a casual gamer, we can pick up where we left off without any requirement of thinking on our behalf. However, this is also the biggest downfall for Nintendo. Casual gamers bought the Wii for only for the novelty of the system. Yes, you made money from us purchasing the console but there is not enough development to keep us interested. Gamers will continue to buy new games and wait anxiously for new games to come out- this provides a steady profit and a loyal fan base. They are also educated in the fact that they know when games will come out. They will pre order or buy on first day. They will get excited. Casual gamers do not do this.
If Nintendo wants to continue attracting casual gamers then they need to make iOS/android apps and find a way to keep causal gamers interested because we are losing or have already lost interest.
I found this article to be interesting and this particular conversation between himself and his wife that he uses as an example of the difference between a casual and hardcore gamer
http://voices.yahoo.com/whats-difference-between-casual-hardcore-gamers-8708771.html
"Honey, it's a first-person shooter with a class system."
"What did you just say?"
"It's a game where you can see your gun in front of you and you can pick different types of soldiers to play as."
"Why didn't you just say that the first time?"
"I did."
I also own an iphone and on face book regularly (just like the many other thousands of people in this world). Therefore, I play games on there only to socialize and play against my friends. Games include word with friends, song pop, bejeweled. What attracted me to these games is that they were so easy to use! No experience necessary. I could go on when I wanted and just play. No wires, no instructions needed. It was prefect. Secondly , I could play against my friends and compare scores. It became a “social” thing just like face book.
I often look for games to play on my iphone incase imp ever bored. I will look at the top 25 app store and see what’s popular and what looks fun then i will download it. I never look at games to play seriously, only purely for fun to play while I am bored or waiting for someone.
The debate between casual and hardcore gamers reminds me of music and the genres many people debate. A lot of people get angry at music fans who only know “radio” music- they don’t understand the definition of “real” music and listen to what is popular and trendy, often jumping on bandwagons and not doing their own research to consider what kind of music is actually good. I myself am one of these people. I detest the radio and rarely listen to it. I detest pop music and agree with Adorno's notion of masses being manipulated and music being standardized. I think gaming is exactly the same in the sense that hardcore gamers are frustrated with these so-called people who purely jump on bandwagons and have no idea about the gaming industry. When you have so much knowledge and appreciation of something and then to have people come along and be so casual and ignorant, its incredible frustrating. However, just like in the music industry, popular music fans are needed just like casual gamers are.
Casual gamers may lack knowledge and respect for the gaming industry ,but they do have benefits, which can only mean good things for the industry. A lot of gamers laughed at the Nintendo wii and didn’t give it the time of day. Casual gamers are more open when it comes to these kind of things and invested their time in money into the wii. Hardcore gamers soon began to take interest and began to use it too. Casual gamers look at games in a way to have fun and relax. Hardcore gamers and intense, and often competitive which can be a bad thing.
Casual gamers are also blamed for the increase in bad games as they are deemed as being simplistic and easily amused. I don’t see anything wrong in playing games purely for fun. That way, we get to have a life outside of a gaming console.
When we think about it, casual gamers are evolving the gaming medium to a much wider spectrum. Anyone can enjoy a casual game. To me, the difference between "casual" and "hardcore" is also about the free time that you've dedicated to the game. If you're a person that picks up a controller to play a quick game because you are bored, and does not require much thinking on your behalf, then yes you are a casual gamer. In contrast, if you spend hours on end playing a game then you are a hardcore gamer.
The definition of both is coming so broad that it’s hard to define what an actual “hardcore” gamer and “casual” gamer is. I think casual gamers are changing the gaming industry in a good way and as a casual gamer myself, we are helping bring video games to more accepted and relevant in media and society.
I often look for games to play on my iphone incase imp ever bored. I will look at the top 25 app store and see what’s popular and what looks fun then i will download it. I never look at games to play seriously, only purely for fun to play while I am bored or waiting for someone.
The debate between casual and hardcore gamers reminds me of music and the genres many people debate. A lot of people get angry at music fans who only know “radio” music- they don’t understand the definition of “real” music and listen to what is popular and trendy, often jumping on bandwagons and not doing their own research to consider what kind of music is actually good. I myself am one of these people. I detest the radio and rarely listen to it. I detest pop music and agree with Adorno's notion of masses being manipulated and music being standardized. I think gaming is exactly the same in the sense that hardcore gamers are frustrated with these so-called people who purely jump on bandwagons and have no idea about the gaming industry. When you have so much knowledge and appreciation of something and then to have people come along and be so casual and ignorant, its incredible frustrating. However, just like in the music industry, popular music fans are needed just like casual gamers are.
Casual gamers may lack knowledge and respect for the gaming industry ,but they do have benefits, which can only mean good things for the industry. A lot of gamers laughed at the Nintendo wii and didn’t give it the time of day. Casual gamers are more open when it comes to these kind of things and invested their time in money into the wii. Hardcore gamers soon began to take interest and began to use it too. Casual gamers look at games in a way to have fun and relax. Hardcore gamers and intense, and often competitive which can be a bad thing.
Casual gamers are also blamed for the increase in bad games as they are deemed as being simplistic and easily amused. I don’t see anything wrong in playing games purely for fun. That way, we get to have a life outside of a gaming console.
When we think about it, casual gamers are evolving the gaming medium to a much wider spectrum. Anyone can enjoy a casual game. To me, the difference between "casual" and "hardcore" is also about the free time that you've dedicated to the game. If you're a person that picks up a controller to play a quick game because you are bored, and does not require much thinking on your behalf, then yes you are a casual gamer. In contrast, if you spend hours on end playing a game then you are a hardcore gamer.
The definition of both is coming so broad that it’s hard to define what an actual “hardcore” gamer and “casual” gamer is. I think casual gamers are changing the gaming industry in a good way and as a casual gamer myself, we are helping bring video games to more accepted and relevant in media and society.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Motion Sickness?
This is more of a quick pole question than an actual post:
Does anyone else get motion sickness when playing first person shooters, Nintendo DS in full 3D or any other game for that matter (In this instance I'm referring to games that aren't MEANT to make you sick, like mindscape and static)?
Does anyone else get motion sickness when playing first person shooters, Nintendo DS in full 3D or any other game for that matter (In this instance I'm referring to games that aren't MEANT to make you sick, like mindscape and static)?
R is for Rammus... ok
Every video game has their own language that a community of people who play the game is able to understand. When you listen in on conversations that either your friends or people around you have about particular video games, what they're saying will either make sense or sound like complete jargon. Signs and specific terms within video games can mean specific things and have meaning that will be relevant to either the play of the game or about the game itself. For example, I posted this youtube video here of the "League of Legends ABCs" which is a cute, adorable video that those who play the game LoL will be able to recognise.
Don't worry if you don't understand, it's just interesting how much of a conversation you can have with people by knowing certain things about game. I know that now, after endless hours spent on LoL, I'm able to sit next to and join my mates in conversation about what happened in their ranked game last night where Annie took smite, stole red and fed the Sion. GG
Anywho, talking about the game you play with people who understand just what you mean is pretty damn awesome to come by. It's also amusing as hell when you're in a group and there's that one guy in the corner muttering because they play DOTA 2. However it does sucks when you're the oddball.
That's my bit, feel free to add :) there's so much more that I lack the effort to cover or consider~
- Georgia C
HUE
Tarantino: "I'm shutting your butt down!"
Quentin Tarantino explodes at a reporter when asked about the link between movie violence and real-life violence.
"to give black american males a western hero. Give them a cool folklore hero that could actually be empowering that could pay back blood for blood."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsJDy8VjZk&feature=player_embedded#!
A Brief Start
This week’s lectures have briefly introduced game
hypes and main themes surrounded video games such as sexism and violence. The
first two lectures emphasised on the technological and culture aspects of games. I find this
paper interesting although I don’t play games. Before the first lecture, I
thought I must be disadvantaged, as I have not play any game systematically and continuously.
However, I am more relax after the first lecture as Kevin mentioned that the
course is equally designed for both gamers and non-gamers, which increased my
confidence to continue taking this course. Also, on the other hand, I think this
paper should expect engagements from
both gamers and non-gamers. It needs different perspectives to be generated
from people of different backgrounds.
As being told that a
decent part of this paper will be focused on social impacts caused by game
industries in recent decades, I have thought about the recent incident of
elementary school shooting in Newtown, where criticism on video games always became
crucial in public media after incident like this. Firstly, it is fair to say
that the technological revolution and accelerated period of video games developments
in the recent decades have had great influence on people’s insights and ways of thinking.
However, it seems like video games will only be mentioned in mass media when serious social incidents related to violence and sexism had happened, and they had often been taken out
of context on the issue as well as been negatively distorted. Linking
back to the elementary school shooting incidents, mass media have overstated
negative impacts of online games, and at the same time, few media agencies are
willing to be moderate toward game culture when serious social and violent events happen. General speaking, video games and
online games have not yet gain mass recognition. As this course will incisively
touch on culture influence of games, I think throughout this course, there
would be some negative debates about the social impact of online game
development. Nevertheless, I believe this paper and vast majority of us would always remain
a neutral point of view when considers social and culture influences of games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)