As I was working my way through the games on cecil I found myself doing a Google image search for each game. After this, I would decide if I was going to attempt to play the game based on whether or not it looked good. I mean this in a visual, aesthetic sense. I found that I didn't want to play games that look pixelated or are monochromatic. I’m looking for appealing graphics and attractive colours.
I don’t consider myself a gamer. I never play video games. Yet, I was making judgments about which games I was going to attempt simply by
looking at screenshots of the game and deciding whether or not I was going to
give that particular game a go.
Considering that
I never play games, I started to wonderwhy and how I could make these judgments
when I have very little experience playing games. Having thought about it for a
bit (and after the immersion lecture), I realized that the reason graphics
and aesthetics was important to me was because it affected the level of
immersion that I had.
I simply could
not “get into” games that weren’t aesthetically pleasing. I don’t enjoy playing
them. I much prefer to play games that have a focus on aesthetics and design.
For me, I think that immersion is less about the act of playing a game or about
the story within the game. I’m not sure of the reason for this. It may have
something to with my interest and background in art, relating back to the world
of concern concept and personal relevance.
As a non-gamer,
I was having my own experience of immersion without initially realizing it.
Now I'm reasonably new to the whole steam concept, since deciding to check it out from the amount of times it was mentioned in lectures. Since finding a few friends and cruising the store I've realised how much of a good thing the've got going on. Awesome specials, informative news and community discussions (reviews and all sorts), driver support, and best of all game invites.
I've just been recently invited to play Dota 2, which usually costs $30, and needless to say I downloaded it immediately. Theres something about getting an official top-rated game for free that just made so much sense to me, I mean with the amount of video game piracy these days game producers are struggling to meet profit margins and hence whacking a giant price tag on new release games, which sends me running even faster to torrent-ville. By allowing a certain amount of gift invites to friends it increases the activeness of the game, word of mouth spreads like wildfire, and piracy would definitely decrease in my opinion. Whats more is that, this gifting would return itself, and a cycle loop would flow around a group of friends gifting each other new releases.
Needless to say I think its a great marketing tactic and wondered why this hasn't been around earlier?! Or maybe it has and I've just been completely oblivious to it?
Books and film are mediums that have had a long and successful relationship
with the horror genre, producing household names like Stephen king and creating
cult classics such as ‘The ring’( the OG Japanese version not the crap
Hollywood knockoffs) and ‘the exorcist’. Yes books and films have been doing a
very good job of scaring the bejeezers out of us for years by immersing people
diegetically to the point of tuning out everything that is external of the
novel or movie , but what about the medium of video games?
It can’t really be said that horror based video games are a
particularly new genre, but from what I've noticed we are seeing an
increase in popularity. Some of the most popular video games in this category
include: 'Slender’, ‘Amnesia’, the ‘Dead Space’ series as well as the ‘Fear’
series. In fact the popularity of horror based video games has risen to the
point where some You Tuber’s such as the user ‘pewdiepie’ can actually make a
living from recording himself playing horror games and uploading his videos on
YouTube. He currently has over four million subscribers who watch his scared
and humorous reactions while being intra-diegetically immersed in horror based
video games.
Pewdiepie’s reactions to these games are genuine, and despite the
fact that he plays games full time, he occasionally finds himself so intra-diegetically
immersed into some games that frighten him that he actually has to quit the
game and search for pictures of cute kittens on the internet to recover from
the shock he receives from some games.
So what sets video games apart from books and movies?
What makes video games unique is how the medium is interactive,
which in turn makes it an ideal vessel for the horror genre. When one is
frightened from a book they are a reader, when one is frightened from a movie
they are a viewer but when someone is frightened by a video game they are a
player; A person with an active role of engaging with the medium instead of the
passive role of simply receiving information. This plays a big role in how the
horror genre is re-imagined in an increasingly digital world. In a way I
guess it can be thought of as the experience of visiting ‘Spookers’
but in a virtual space. When you visit Spookers you can decide on which
attractions to go to, in whatever order and paths made possible by the creators
of the horror based attractions. In a video game, the player chooses where they
want to go and in whatever order that the creators of the made possible. In
saying that, although the game creators have set
out particular routes for the player to complete, the power is still
with the player. The player progresses the narration
and experiences of the game by simply choosing to continue to play. Also
how the player chooses to play the game directly affects the way in which the
game will affect the player, requiring a level of performance. In mediums such
as books or movies very little is needed beyond basic understanding of language
used by the medium, whereas with video games, sufficient understanding of the video
games limitations and expectations have to be combined with enough skill to
progress if one has the intention to complete the game.
It is this control by the player creates a sense of agency
attached to video games that makes it simple to engage with the medium on an
intra-diegetically immersed level. As mentioned in the reading, the player and
the player character will merge as kind of a hybrid of man and machine. The
player acts through the player character through instinct as they are immersed
into the constructed reality in-game reality. No more are those searching for
means to frighten themselves reduced to reading about or watching an on-screen panicked character. A character, who in the most clichéd of manners will most
likely decide to flee upstairs in hopes of escaping a pursuer with murderous intent.
With video games, the character, will not head to a dead end……and their own
impending doom unless the player controlling them decides to do so. What video
games do is merge the character with the person intending to unfold characters
story, the narrative is in the players hands, and it is exactly the sense of
agency creates the possibilities of intra-diegetic/situational immersion that
puts the player in the shoes of the character. This interactive type of immersion
that merges the reality of the gamer with the constructed in-game reality does
a wonderful thing when combined with the horror genre, it has the potential to
frighten people in new, “heart racing”, and “jump out of your seat and scream”
ways.
Unfortunately I missed the name of the scholar I have written this with in mind, so feel free to add this info if you were more diligent than I.
What stuck out to me on the Thursday lecture was the idea that playing the same game, but in a different style, could create a diffident sense of engagement to the point it may be a different game.
This idea didn't seem so far fetched as I instantly thought of games such as World of Warcraft, but then I continued it onto games that I perceived to have less variation, yet it could still be applied.
The most obvious example to me was WoW. This is not a game I am overly familiar with, so please feel free to correct any mistakes I make. Roughly, the player picks their own playing style in picking the character they play. Things such as the race give different abilities, as does class. It is from here playing style is determined. The stats and boots you give to the character are done to build the best specific role you can, whether it be tank, healer or damage. Each of these come with their own style of play, essentially creating a minimum of 3 game play experiences. In group battles these classes all take on specific strategic roles in the fight. As a tank you try to be as resistant to damage as possible, high armor, health, and try to take all the damage so as the less resistant members of the group are able to do their jobs, thus tanks are the main target of healing. Healers try to avoid being hit, due to low damage resistance being often inherent of this category, while healing the tank mainly, as well as other members of the party. Lastly DPS try to kill the monster without drawing its attention off the tank, and onto themselves.
This requires a lot of co ordination within teams too, but if people don't play their role as expected bad things happen.
As such each class plays and feels completely different. Each with its own strengths and weaknesses, and thus approaches to playing the game.
However once I began thinking about it more, I applied this same logic to games that to me seem more homogeneous, and it still held true.
Shooter games came to mind. TF2 has a great deal of different experiences available to players due to its own class system. The Spy (if you haven't already, watch the whole series) is one of the quirkier styles of gameplay compared to an average FPS. He relies less on 'shoot em up' and more on stealth, and in fact impersonating the enemies to sneak up behind and stab them is one of the most efficient ways to get kills, yet this skill set is entirely useless for other classes. There are snipers (fairly self explainitory) who hang back and take long range scoped shots. Soldiers use of rocket jumps is almost expected. Healers again have to avoid the damage being tossed out, whilst staying in range to heal their companions.
These skills don't cross over classes, and thus neither does the gameplay experience. So players often prefer only a few classes (noting preference and "are better with" may not equate. Although it an be hilarious when someone plays a class in a way that deviates from the norm.
The game I thought had the most homogeneity was Left4Dead 2, (not counting the ability to play as the infected).
L4D2 is a zombie shooter where the whole city is over run by zombies. There are some that have their own special abilities, such as the stereotypical 'tank' and some that incapacitate single players, such as smokers and hunters. The aim is to get to the other side of the map, to a safe room without dying.
I often play very, at least I like to think, efficiently. Only shooting what I need in order to make it to the next point, avoiding mass conflicts. In this style of play it is often a constant run, only pausing to pick up ammo or for built in choke events. In this style of play the game is very fast, and fairly sparsely infested.
However, other people play differently. There is the "all guns blazing approach, which while killing zombies fast, also attracts them fast. In this style its more a old fashioned shoot everything that moves and hope they don't get to you style of play. And I had one friend who decided it was more like a WW2 FPS game like Medal of Honour, who tried to sneak around slowly and tried to kill the zombies from distance. His experience was being swarmed by the mob the game spawns to chase slow players, and he left the cyber cafe saying L4D2 had a stupid concept, and was a lame game (slightly clean version of events) I would be interested in hearing any games where people have different experiences, and how it differs, based on their gameplay styles, especially if the game does not have a class system.
Just like buying the trendiest
clothes, wearing the hottest colour right new, watching the most popular TV
show or using the most "in" slang, we'd all like to be on top of our
game. To keep up with society and the most popular thing right now. Games are
no different. I remember when Diablo III came out and my Facebook feed was
filled with "omg look what I've got, this is gonna be my life for the next
3 days", or "so exciting, just got new Diablo", and all of a
sudden everyone was commenting, liking, wanting, or being jealous at someone
else having it. It was most certainly the "trend" back then. It felt
like if you didn't know what it was, you were totally out and not just in the
gaming world but also in the social world. So are trends one of the big reasons
why some games are so popular? Is it because everyone wants to feel like
they're part of the next biggest thing? Do people play it just for the sake of
playing it?
I have many friends who started
playing Tetris on Facebook because all of our other friends were battling and
talking about it every day. They said it felt like if they didn't start
playing, they couldn't be part of the circle and felt left out of conversations.
I'm sure everyone knows the game Draw Something which was so popular a while
back. Having to not own an Iphone or a smart phone meant that I was listening
to my friends talk about this game every day and being with them whilst they're
playing the game with others. So it feels like the social media and the
pressure of maintaining friendship also plays in with why games may be so
popular.
Clint Worley, the senior producer on
Sony’s “EverQuest” (or “Evercrack,” to the afflicted),
says it’s not the games themselves that are addictive — it’s the social aspects of the massively multiplayer
genre. “The social networking is really
kind of the glue that pushes people to sit in the game for long periods of time,” he says. Dr. Hilarie Cash, a Redmond,
Wash.-based therapist who specializes in Internet and computer addiction, agrees. She works with lots of teenagers
and young men in their 20s who
don’t have a lot going on in the real world. So they play online games to fill the void of friendship, companionship — even
love.
Multi-member online games means there
are chances to meeting new friends on the web, to create a virtue life where
the other person may not know you on a personal level to judge you so it can be
the perfect platform of escape of some people. If we become too reliant on
this, it may become an addiction. So does the social media and the pressure to
conform force people to become "gamers" and is it one of the reasons
for addiction? All I can say is that on a personal level, the pressure to know
what the hell my friends were on about some of time made me try a variety of
games just for the sake of knowing.
Thanks for the browser game
shared by Kevin in the blog, ‘Robot Unicorn Attack’ and its derivative work ‘Robot
Unicorn Attack Heavy Metal’ which made me fascinated and cost me at least 2
hours to play them. Until now, I still enjoy to challenge a higher rank which
made by myself. Although the game will restart from
the beginning while you failed, it won’t make player feel boring. Instead, player
wants to challenge more, which could be seen as a kind of intra-diegetic
immersion. For different individual, there are certain different elements make
them immersion with in it. Here, I will use Calleja’s components to analysis
this exciting game. Tactical involvement For this micro browser game, I would classify
it as action category. Not like the strategy game, the action game not always
has lots of tactical decision to make. But the ‘Robot Unicorn Attack’ is a
different one which has amount of tactical decision in
it. Accompany with the progress of game, the skill of player is getting proficiency
and they can memory more and more barriers in the game, thus player would try
more different tactical decision in it. Take this game as one example, the
moment of jumping and dashing always need to be practiced, thus it creates
different fun in different round.
Performative involvement
As one action game, the most existing
element is in controlling. Although the ‘Robot
Unicorn Attack’ only has two controlling ways (which are ‘z’ for jumping and ‘x’
for dashing), but the simplest controlling is the most important element to
make the player easily immersion in the game experience.
Compare with the other games with complex controlling, those always makes the
player is busy in learning controlling but not enjoy it as an amusement.
Affective
involvement
Another element
made me immersion in this game is its ranking system. The ranking system allows
the player submit their score to its online database, thus the game has double challenge.
The first one is breaking player themselves’ ranking; the other one is the ranking
competition between different players. Accompany with the raise of ranking
position, the player could be satisfied by their achievement in ranking system.
Shared involvement
The
ranking system also allows players sharing their final point within their
friend circle. Thorough the social network sites like Facebook, this kind of
micro browser game are easier to make a common game experience between friends
in the real world, which will make the friend have more communication with each
other.
Something I have had on my mind a lot since it was brought up this week was the idea of hypermediacy and its generally awkward relationship with games. As something which demands attention and a variable degree of awareness, it’s easy to see how including another level of information can be troublesome. Even more so when you consider the fact that each game has to establish a foundation and set of functions, rules and structures for the player (and the creator) to adhere to.
In an attempt to find examples of hypermediacy in games I dug up some flash games I have played earlier which I think could (or am I completely off track?) represent some elements of hypermediacy. If anything, they have a very large emphasis on a ‘meta’ approach.
The first is ‘Upgrade Complete’, a game which requires the player to ‘buy’ EVERYTHING in the game, including the preloader, developer logos, and menu buttons. What I find really interesting about this is how marginalized the actual playing section of the game becomes, you end up spending all your time in the shop buying different elements of the game before briefly playing the constantly changing arcade-style game just so you can get back to the shop. It makes elements which were previously formalities which enabled the playing of games the main focus. http://armorgames.com/play/3955/upgrade-complete
The second is ‘Achievement Unlocked’, a game which has the simple aim of gaining achievements. It has achievements for almost everyhing it can get out of its simple interface and gameplay. You are rewarded for standing still, dying a bunch of times and checking the walkthrough. Once again, the game shifts the focus of the game from a central focus or goal to an element of games which can be considered either a trivial congratulations or an additional set of goals. http://armorgames.com/play/2893/achievement-unlocked
Would you consider these examples of hypermediacy, or just games with a different use of already present and familiar elements of games? Anyone got any better examples?
Recently in the lectures Kevin discussed how while playing
Valve’s Half-Life 2 he discovered that if he threw paint cans against
enemies the contents would blind them and he could escape. It was a rather
trivial detail the developer still thought to include it. The idea of if a
container is full of a liquid and you then through the container hard enough
for the contents to burst out is very common sense adding to the construction
of a cohesive game space and limiting the structural incoherence.
However, I
personally remember that exact instance and others like is (particularly in
Valve games) where these very common sense minor details have actually
detracted from the immediacy of the game and made me acutely aware of the hyper-mediated
nature of the game. The reason for this I find is that after growing up playing
video games I have an expectancy of brokenness. Not in the sense of glitches
but in the sense that only recently has the hardware been developed enough to
support all the little common sense interactions a player can have even within
a small space. These omissions didn’t detract from the game they were just
realities that you accepted when you hung your disbelief up at the door. When you
booted up a game you set aside all expectations of being able to pick up a book
and flip through it for example. At best you would get an in-game text description
of the book hastily plugged into the game which was fine because you knew there
was only so much give in the game. Overtime this acceptance of games
limitations became the only way I was used to them. I remember the first time I
played Half Life and found a functioning microwave in-game it blew my
mind.
These days however we have games like the Elder Scroll series
which has several hundreds of in-game books across the series, each with pages
of text filled out with stories, song, and history. These books add hours of
additional content and context to the game world and are completely superfluous
to the game itself. These added details
are amazing developments but I can’t help but compare them to my memories of
gaming. Every time I boot up a new game I last about ten minutes before being
caught up on some trivial detail, like books or paint cans, and start to think
about the ‘game-ness’ rather than the story/text. I compare things that I have found in a
new game and think about what it would be like if it came out ten years prior. It’s strange that these additions that work to
flesh out the game world and make it feel like a viable space, a liveable
space, make me so acutely aware of the games construction.
In this post I’d like draw out an aspect of Kirkland’s
discussion on the Silent Hill game series, particularly his comparison of these
games to the typical first person shooter War game. What this author highlights
is that gender roles and codes are integrated into, or at least can be read in
the formal conventions of a game; what actions can take place, what are expected to occur and in what kind of ‘game
environment’.
Kirkland describes the “flailing”, desperate fighting style
of Silent Hill protagonists as the games’ refusal to present masculinized avatars
typical of the videogame industry, the type displaying control, power and
precision when fighting. The protagonists of Silent Hill ‘self-preserve’ rather
than target and destroy, as if the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against them.
What stands out, and serves Kirkland’s argument most, is the ability of one’s
avatar to flee, to refuse combat. This is of course the player’s choice however
as Kirkland mentions, running away is highly expected through design of the
games. A feminised and arguably more realistic course of action is therefore
expected of the player, carried out by the largely male series of protagonists.
Although with further consideration it is apparent that for such a capability
as fleeing to used, or even incorporated into game design, the game environment
must be non-linear providing somewhere to run to and for game completion to remain possible after doing so. In
order for typically masculine game traits to be undermined and reconsidered as
Silent Hill does, the game environment arguably needs to accommodate alternatives
such as fleeing confrontation.
This is where comparison with FPS war games proves most
effective in the argument that gender codes are integrated into formal
conventions of a game. Worth noting is that I’m no expert in this genre and am
generalising heavily. These games often consist of levels or missions in which
a closed, linear path is set to be ‘cleared’ or passed through. Ulterior routes
may be provided, however they are often a different means to the same end in a
short term alternative. Missions are attached to environments in such a way
that one is not surpassed without completion of the other. Fleeing is therefore
discouraged and not an option in the long term, as in the case of actual war. A
positively masculine drive is given to the game-play while being demanded by
the environment; try and should you fail, try again. Alternative gender codes
with the potential to show fear or the intelligence to know when you’re
outnumbered(!) are not facilitated in most FPS war games due to a rigid set of
formal and narrative conventions determined by a reflection of typically
dominant masculinity.
Reference:
Kirkland, E. (2009). “Masculinity in Video Games: The
Gendered Gameplay of Silent Hill.” Camera
Obscura 71(24). doi 10.1215/02705346-2009-006
In this blog entry, I argue that there is another kind of videogame immersion
unconsidered by Laurie Taylor. A person experiences diegetic immersion when
they fade into a text and become unaware of the relation and creation of its
elements. Though the 11 drunk players are most definitely scared of the game,
their experience of it as a group ensures they don’t forget their independent
existence from it. They actually continuously discuss the relation and creation
of textual elements as they play asking who made the game and complaining about
the “shitty” frame rate and quality of the lap top (which results in some
lagging). They are never lost in the text because they talk about it as a game
yet they are interestingly still scared out of their minds. Laurie Taylor’s ‘situated
immersion’ only partly explains their fear. In this kind of immersion the
videogame space becomes experiential space and the player acts within the game
as oppose to upon it. This results in them responding unconsciously and
instinctively. Yet for this to occur, ‘conventions of video game space and the
interface must become naturalised.’ The drunk gamers are never playing within
the game space. They ask others to play complaining it’s too hard. When Slender
approaches, instead of responding instinctively within the game space and
turning and running, a player slams the laptop closed. The controls are not
naturalised. One viewer repeatedly yells at the player to hold ‘shift’ to
sprint but he continues to walk at a vulnerable pace because he is holding
caps-lock. There is structural incoherence as players cannot escape the woods
due to a climbable chain link fence standing in their way.’ I was admittedly
completely freaked out playing Slender.
I talked to my mates about it and was puzzled to find out they found it lame. I
regularly watch horrors and I like to consider myself not easily scared. The
reason for different reports on the game is become of different worlds of
concern. Taylor
argues that for a player to have a context within the overall game space, there
must be a narrative context (thought this requirement is very low). For Slender, to be scary the player must
have background knowledge of this meme-generated monster who appears in the
backgrounds of photos, has tentacles, no face and kills children (depending on
what source you read). There is no concrete knowledge on Slender because he was
created and added to by countless bloggers. This ambiguity was taken advantage
of in the video game. Gordon Calleja distinguishes between designed and
personal narrative. Designed narrative is the game world’s history and
background that the creator presents us with and personal narrative is the
players interpretation of the game playing experience. There is deliberately no
designed narrative in Slender. You
are in the woods with a torch at night and have to collect scary letters while
being hunted and none of this is explained what so ever. The creator’s idea is
that you’ll bring in background knowledge. Like all good horrors, the creator
knew that it is what you don’t see/know, that which is left to the imagination
which has the potential to really scare you. Taylor argues that games played in the third
person lead to ‘an experience more complex and closer to the corresponding
encounter with the extra gaming world than first person.’ The restricted nature
of first person is exploited in a genius way. He can sneak right up behind you,
when you turn around he could be right there. Gordon Calleja’s ‘spatial
involvement’ defines the player’s ability to locate oneself within a wider game
area than is visible on the screen. If you know exactly where everything is on
the map you will feel a sense of habitation and belonging. So in Slender, the map is purposely hard to
navigate. The trees all look the same; it’s dark, misty and easy to get lost.
Hypermediacy is avoided, you don’t have a health bar, inventory, map, or even
battery life limit for your torch. The 11 drunk guys playing Slender were not
immersed in a diegetic or situated way as defined by Taylor because of the outside discussion.
What immersed and freaked them out was the affect of dread, the not-knowing/seeing
of horror films creatively applied to a video game.
Lloyd Thomason (2691650)
Word Count: 717 I realised John Kwon had already written on Slender after I posted. he had some really interesting points which make me want to alter my conclusion. The main thing about immersion is that it always ultimately depends on the player and their context. For this reason, I believe Laurie Taylor's distinctions are obviously useful but not the only ways a player can become immersed in a text as I feel I have demonstrated here.
