Category Archives: Respondents

Foundations

After reading and watch Nick Montfort’s article and video on interactive fiction, I started to see a similarity between interactive games and the role-playing games that I play today. Obviously before computers or video devices, people could only play role-playing games in either text based books or oral games. These two forms however were very limited in either the imagination of the person the player was playing with, or the story/plot of the book the game was based in. Furthermore, players could cheat by reading ahead in books, or would have trouble keeping up with what was going on in an oral game if any of the other players were also having trouble. These limits were overcome with the creation of the personal computer, which allowed texts to be created in endless possibilities. However, with the lack of anything visual being visible on the computers, the text became even more important to the whole experience of the role-playing game. While books could have drawings and in oral games you could draw pictures, in text based interactive fiction games the player had to picture the entire world based on the worlds that were given to him. This made text based interactive fiction the first step towards today’s modern role-playing games, in that it forced the player to picture the entire world in their heads, it kept them from cheating by reading ahead in the books, and allowed for players to play by themselves. These abilities transformed the role-playing experience for many players, and allowed the genre to become more and more open ended. The less structure a game has, the greater a player’s ability is over his or her choices in the game. This in turn, leads to the production and creation of many possible styles of game play and story paths on which a character can follow. With the rise of better graphics and video capabilities on computers, it was only a matter of time before the visual components of the gaming world replaced the dominance of textual components. This underlying foundation in the role-playing genre of games can still be seen today in games such as Skyrim. In which the player after doing the introduction is free to go do whatever and talk to whomever they wish to, with only a slight overall story arc guiding them—just like the text based interactive fictions of old. While a game’s world is no longer described in words alone, thanks to the advancements in video games, the influence of open ended play that developed under the texted based interactive fiction is still the foundation that modern role-playing games use.

Video games can teach morality

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/82421/can-video-games-teach-morality/

While many of us have spoken about how video game violence can be immoral, few have pointed out the ways that video games can improve morality. While there are games like Grand Theft Auto that clearly glamorize crime, there are also games like Red Dead Redemption that both penalize players for immoral action and reward them for moral action. For example, players are rewarded for helping other characters in trouble and penalized for spurring their horse too much. These games go back to the days of Super Mario Bros and The Legend of Zelda, where the goal was to defeat evil and save the kidnapped princess to return home as a hero.
It is in the best interest of video game developers to create moral video games, as these will appeal to a larger audience and parents more. As the graphics resolution of games has increased, so has realism, which may contribute to the relatively recent outcry against video game violence. The same violent action that has been in games before suddenly becomes more graphic, more realistic, and therefore more disturbing to the viewer. But even this can be used as a tool to help the player understand that there are consequences of our actions, even in the imaginary world of video games. Games like Darfur is Dying teaches the player of the consequences of actions in the real world by showing foreign conflicts through the eyes of the victims. So, before anyone cries foul against video game violence, especially those that judge without seeing actual game play, keep an open mind and find out how the players are affected in practice, rather just in theory.

Videogames not good for history?

The discussion in class Tuesday was very interesting.  Obviously not all historical games would be bad for society as outlined in Frasca’s article.  I definitely disagree with the fact that games are not an effective medium for expressing these horrific events in history.  While there will be critics calling the game immoral, there will be critics for every game made.  This is the same throughout all types of media.  I think that games are the best interaction for these events.  They allow the player to get more of a feeling and fundamental grasp of the events than any movie or book ever could.  Games can be the best method for displaying historical events because of their ability to recreate the scene better than could be described in words or a modern built scene viewed through a camera lens.

Videogames do toy with players’ emotions more than other mediums might.  Most games have the player feeling as if they were right in the middle of the action, or even the one causing the problem (ex. JFK Reloaded).  This factor, although it can be bad for the player’s feelings initially, I believe it can make the player get a better understanding mentally and emotionally over a period of time.  Also, I think that games like Flight to Freedom can be great for educational purposes.  Putting the player in the shoes of the historical figures, and making them rationalize the decisions they are presented with.  I don’t know how Frasca could not recognize this as a viable medium.  Videogames clearly seem like the best way to display and represent some of the tragedies in history.

Maybe Video Games Really Can Change Reality.

I must say that I agree with the points that John made in his first-reader post entitled, “Can Games Change Reality?” As far as I am concerned, video games are quite capable of creating the illusion of an alternate reality. While some people may believe that video games are nothing more than…well…video games, I am one of the people who thinks that video games can do so much more than provide a brief session of entertainment. Indeed, in his book, How to Do Things with Video Games, Bogost made it very clear that there are a number of things for which video games can be used, other than just fun.

John briefly mentioned SimCity in his post. SimCity 4 is an excellent example of a game that can transfer somebody to a different reality. The game allows the player to assume the role of the mayor of a budding town or city. The player is allowed to do almost anything that could be done in a real-life city, including constructing vast transportation networks; developing enormous residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural zones; and controlling various things such as recreation, education, utilities, and taxes. Perhaps the best part of the game is being allowed to summon catastrophic natural disasters to obliterate your city and terrorize the citizens that dwell within it. The designers spared absolutely no expense to ensure that the game was as realistic as possible. The point is that if one were to play SimCity 4 for a long enough period of time, he or she may suddenly enter a state in which the game seems real.

As a civil engineering major who finds great enjoyment in playing games like this that deal with urban planning and development, I may be speaking for myself when I say that SimCity 4 is capable of transferring one to a different reality. I honestly believe that everybody could identify himself or herself with a specific video game that transports him or her to what seems like another world.

Morality of Videogames

At the beginning of class on Tuesday, we talked a lot about whether or not games that reenacted various events from history were morally OK and the consensus seemed to be that they were not. On the other hand, we said that books that retold such events were morally OK.

I would like to contend that in some ways games are in fact more morally correct then books. As we mentioned in class, books typically draw on internal emotions and in the case of September 11th may give the reader similar or even worse feelings then they experience on that day. This gives the reader no hope; the outcome is the outcome no matter what. The reader can only continue to read until the set ending is reached.

As for the videogame side, they generally represent external actions. If made correctly, a game could allow a played to truly act as though they were on a flight that is destined to crash into the World Trade Center, unless they do something. While a game like this may allow the player to reach a historically incorrect ending, wouldn’t seeing other people on the plane and being able to move about give you a historically accurate perspective of what really occurred on those flights? If a game can in fact do this, then morally isn’t it ok?

It is not striving to give you a false sense of what happened or lie to the game player. If they choose to doom the plane or act irrationally that is simply a part of the game, but the true purposeful winning route would hopefully give the game player a sense of reality. Perhaps, saving all those people in a game would give someone the true feeling of how terrible the loss of one flight of people is. Then, when the player compares this to the actual number of casualties during 9/11, maybe they will actually be able to absorb the entire scope of the attack.

Not Useful, or Not Tactful?

In his post, Kole raises the question of “how useful are games that deal with political or social issues?”  Although he contends that the answer is “not very,” I disagree.

Yes, there seems to be a critical and alarming lack of interest in America’s youth (ages 12-18) when it comes to social and political issues.  (I cringe at the memory of asking my German classmates why they liked Obama so much during the election, to receive the response “I don’t know!”)  However, I disagree to say that overall, most “cultured, intelligent adults” do not play video games—growing up, many of the parents of my friends would play video games with their children; for example my Dad and I would play Age of Empires II against each other all the time, and I suspect he reads more nonfiction social/political and historical books than most current college students.  Often times, I forget video games existed before I was born.  Likewise, although I may not necessarily see adults playing or talking about video games, doesn’t mean they do not indulge themselves at least once and a while.

I think the real question isn’t “how useful” are these games, but rather “how well made” are these games.  Although the games we played in class dealing with social and political issues were interesting, they failed to reel me in like other games that I play on a day to day basis.  But what if these games were created differently?  Rather than being point-blank about the topic and facts surrounding it, what if the approach were changed?  I think of Neverwinter Nights I, a game which introduced me not only to D&D lore, but also a lot of SAT words.  The program didn’t actively tell me “this word means this,” but rather incorporated more complex words into the game, causing me to go out of my way to learn them.  So what if we design political/social issue games in a similar manner?  Rather than a blunt message, what if we only divulge enough contextual information to strike a person’s interest?  Perhaps the problem with these games is that they lack soft power (the ability to inspire) by delivering the message too directly.  Genuine curiosity (interest generated from within oneself) drives humans to uncover knowledge—if we just hand over the information (forced interest, may feel alien to one’s actual interests), where is the fun in uncovering it, piece by piece?

Games vs Stories: The “Epic Game”

In class today, we discussed the differences between what stories tend to tell and what games tend to tell in their narrative. As Lizzie Ehrreic posted in her post about Gonzalo’s article, he fails to truly see that games are able to tell narrative stories just as well as any written work. Her use of the Pokémon games and their comparison to simple children’s books is one great example of how Gonzalo seems to overlook the abilities of videogames.

Another major flaw that I believe Gonzalo fails to see is the rise of the “Epic Game”, which is the videogame version of the Epic Poem. With the rise of the great trilogy game series of the past few years—Call of Duty Modern Warfare, Gears of War , Mass Effect, and the soon to be completed Assassin’s Creed—a new type narrative ability has begun to appear in the videogame world. These games tell the story of one character or a group of characters as they face challenges and face complex problems, some of which mirror modern social and political problems and issues. These games using the same formula of the Epic Poems—throwing the reader/player into the “middle” of the story with flashbacks showing you what happened before, and then coming to a climatic ending that brings resolution to the journey with an overarching message of some type—give the players the chance to experience the tales of old epic poems in a new and fresh way.

I personally see this new form of the epic poem, in “epic games,” a great way to teach and involve people in a story that tries to tackle the political and social issues that we face today. I don’t think it is coincidental that these games have been the games that have dominated the gaming awards and ratings industry for every year that they have come out. Could these games be the future of storytelling? What better way for stories to be told than to live them yourself, to breath and walk in the very steps that the character or characters you are learning about are. Storytelling has evolved over the past centuries for oral, to written, and now virtual. While written stories are still the main medium in which we express our moral lessons and narratives, I believe that it will only be a matter of time before videogames become the main means in which we pass down the stories that summarize the times and tribulations we have in our world.

 

 

Becoming Art

We ended last class discussing the parallels between well respected art vs kitsch and video games. Though no great conclusions were reached, some very interesting points were brought up. One such point was in the fact that there is no apparent equal in video games to fine art such as a Goya painting. Especially because a true Goya is valuable in its originality and authenticity. Even very convincing reproductions of it are still not as valuable. Fine art is not made to be mass produced. A large measure of the success of  video game however, is how many copies are sold. The more the better. Mass production is desired. Art is valuable in a museum, video games are valuable in you home. I was wondering if this difference could be considered a barrier to video games being established as fine art. I was also wondering if people thought that, given there is a now a video game exhibit in Smithsonian American Art Museum, video games are overcoming that barrier. It is necessary to keep in mind that video games as a medium or art are still extremely young relative to things like painting or sculpture. Perhaps video games will never be totally excepted by the art community, but I believe it is still to early to tell for certain.

Relaxing Video Games?

In class on Tuesday, we discussed Bogost’s chapter about “Relaxation”.  We even played that meditation game in class.  Can video games actually help someone physically relax?  I think that games can allow someone to relax who is feeling stressed out, similar to a stress ball to release frustration.  However, “Zen games” seem not to relax the body, but instead frustrate.  Holding your hands still, with your thumbs in the same place, and trying not to tilt your smartphone does not sound particularly relaxing to me.  Perhaps I’m just too active and need to keep moving and doing something while I play a game, or else I don’t feel like I actually am playing a game, but rather subjecting myself to something unpleasant.  It could just be me, but the game “Cloud” really did not seem fun at all.  It felt like I was literally outside watching clouds (in the boring sense, not the beauty sense).  When I first started up the game, I was confused as to what I should be doing, and it took me a good 10 minutes of flying around and doing nothing until I finally decided to see if I could choose a different level.

Personally, the only relaxation I feel in video games comes in the form of a game that I really cannot lose unless I do not try at all.  Unfortunately, most games made specifically to do this are incredibly boring, because there are no negative consequences for doing wrong things other than wasting time.  Games feel much less immersive if there is some sort of consequence for doing something wrong.  This is why dying in games is so effective; people who play games do not want to die.  If there is no goal to be achieved, in victory even, then there is nothing to the game at all.

The Relaxation Debate

I was thinking about the debate yesterday about using games as a form of relaxation and during class it seemed like a lot of people disagreed with Bogost that videogames can be relaxing.  An example of this was Bogost’s own game Guru Meditiation, originally designed to help people meditate.  Despite its goal, many people felt having to focus on being completely still and worrying about the Guru falling was more stressful than relaxing.

However, other students agreed that games can be used as mindless distractions.  These types of games are hard to categorize because they depend highly on how they are played.  Take Temple Run for example.  A person who is competitive and actively desires a high score will attempt to stay focused and attend to every turn and obstacle the game presents.  With ruined pathways and hurdles at every turn and a pack of demonic-looking guerrillas at the player’s back, this can be an attention-grabbing and even stressful experience.  However, if someone who is only looking to focus their attention on something other than the environment around them—a busy train, a long car ride, or even a long evening lecture—and not on the score, then the experience becomes much more simple.  The player tunes out the guerillas, reacts almost automatically to the obstacles, and feels only a slight inconvenience when his character plunges into the swampy water after a fatal mistake.  He may lose more, that doesn’t matter as long as he is distracted.  Psychologically, this involves the use of schemas and scripts, blueprints for automatic thinking that come from previous experience.  When our minds depend heavily on these mental shortcuts, very little conscious thought is involved.  A popular example of this is the idea that car accidents happen more often within close proximity of one’s house.  Because we become so used to driving the same roads day after day, we pay less attention to the things around us.  Most importantly, we are distracted from our environment.  However, distraction can also cause us to forget our troubles, separate ourselves from an awkward or stressful environment, and make time appear to move a little faster.  I argue that this phenomenon is ultimately a form of relaxation, albeit not in the sense of lounging by a pool in a ritzy resort in Cabo.