Author Archives: ekurzik

On Interactive Fiction

While reading/listening to Nick Monfort, I couldn’t help but think of the automated options one must sometimes navigate while on the phone.  “Press 1 for ___, press 2 for ___, etc.”  Although interactive fiction seems more evolved because the player physically types in a response, the computer’s action is no different–it reads the command and completes it.  If it does not understand a command, it will ask for a different command/code.  I find the value in these type of games, not in the actual game-play itself, but how the mind may perceive it.

If we ignore the fact that the game was programmed, and think of it as an audio book or another person telling a story, there is some value  within this kind of gameplay.  No longer is the player just trying to illicit some kind of reaction through the program via coding/commands, but is actually interacting and experiencing a story secondhand.  Depending on the size of the program, the routes the actual story could take are limitless.  And instead of focusing on the graphics or sounds of the game, a person is allowing their imagination to take over, something that seems very difficult for adults sometimes (at least in my own experience).  Furthermore, interactive fiction can present a puzzle, riddle, or challenge to solve.

However, before this class, I had never heard of interactive fiction.  My question is, how popular is interactive fiction really?  How else is interactive fiction “rich” in game-play?

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?

Marketing for the Sexes

Branching off from Bogost’s chapter on sex in videogames, I would like to discuss a common theme within many games I have played or seen.  The theme is marketing for the male audience.  The video below points something out; why is it that we often see male heroes running around in full armor (unless they choose otherwise), while the female versions of armor are often like metal lingerie?  Even female armor that features enough coverage, typically the armor is shaped to her body (molded around the boobs, waist, hips) rather than resting on top.  In reality, either form of armor for women would not be comfortable or very helpful.  The message here is clear; although the women’s armor in the game isn’t a selling point of the game, it may add more appeal to the game for straight male gamers, and may turn female players away from certain games, viewing it as the objectification of women.  So does this help limit the game industry, or is the industry just giving the majority of players what they want to see?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTGh0EMmMC8

Taking a Look Deeper into Gameplay

While reading the chapter by Juul, I couldn’t help but ask myself, by Juul’s definition, what kind of gamer I actually am.  Although the elements outlined in the chapter (Positive/Negative fiction preference, game knowledge, time investment, and attitude towards difficulty) definitely affect gameplay and the overall experience of the player, I do not believe that one can generalize players into two categories, that of “casual” and “hardcore”.  Personally, as a gamer, I hold no preference for negative/positive fiction, game knowledge, or difficulty.  Although time is certainly an element (some games I can play for a few minutes, while others I won’t play unless I have 20+ minutes) which dictates what kind of game I play, it does not dictate me as a gamer, as I play games of both shorter and lengthier time requirements.

When it comes to games, I believe the game knowledge and level of difficulty are dictated by the time investment factor.  Games that are designed to be used in shorter amounts of time intervals typically do not require vast game knowledge or complex controls to learn, thus the difficulty comes from advancement through levels rather than complexity within the core coding of the game.  Games designed for longer intervals of time typically can expand and require greater game knowledge, and present challenges outside of the basic game motive, thus creating a more complex game with more options and controls.

Within game design, it is important to consider to whom you are marketing a game, but perhaps it is of greater value to know and fully understand what you hope to achieve through the game and the player’s reaction itself (e.g. a tool for relaxation or stress relief, a game to stimulate certain emotions (fear, excitement, happiness, etc.), a puzzle to stimulate thought or to challenge oneself, etc.).  It all comes back to the question, “why do people play video games?”  For some of us, it might be a way to pass time while waiting in line to pick up a package, for others, it might be a way of life; to relieve the stress and have fun at the end of the day (used as a hobby), or to just stop thinking about one or more aspects of one’s life.  For many of us, however, it may a mixture of the two, depending on an individual’s priorities in life.

 

Whose fault is it really?

In jholt9’s post,  the question was raised “for the case of China, if the government can make “blacklists” (as described in the podcast), then shouldn’t that same government protect its workers from foreign manipulation? Should China exclude (either “exile” or heavily tax) companies that expose and harm its workers, as described in the readings and podcast?”

Regarding the first question, in reality, it is China that encourages foreign businesses to come in and take advantage of their huge work force and low wages, by enabling “Special Economic Zones” which give special tax incentives to foreign businesses as well as greater freedom on international trade activities .  In effect, by moving a business overseas, not only can a company save money with lower wages for the workers, but they will also not be as heavily taxed as they would in countries such as the US.  In addition, because these special economic zones fail to have strict labor laws, the company saves money by not having to pay for health insurance, liability, and lots of other things.  How does this benefit China?  It creates many more jobs for the citizens (which in turn provides better income for food for their families), as well as pumps international money into the local economy.  As described in the podcast, Chinese “labor unions” do very little to prevent underage workers from joining the workforce or helping citizens who are being exposed or harmed.   Even if China were to place sanctions on companies who mistreat their workers, they would be doing more damage to themselves than to the international businesses, as those businesses could simply move to Thailand or India to other economic zones and take advantage of the cheap labor there.  In turn, that would be higher unemployment rates for Chinese citizens, leading to greater poverty and a poor economy.

In conclusion, it isn’t just China that needs to change when it comes to their industrial class; as long as special economic zones exist with few or no (enforced) labor laws, businesses will continue to take advantage of the workers.  Although the businesses themselves should be held accountable for mistreatment, in the end, they are just doing what they can do get ahead and offer its consumers with the best possible product for the lowest price (and greatest revenue).

 

Generational Differences

http://www.agts.edu/faculty/faculty_publications/articles/creps_generations_chart.pdf

During our discussion of some of the technological differences between the decades in class, I thought it would be equally interesting to see how technology has shaped the different generations.  The link features a chart featuring four overall groupings of various generations:  The builders (born between 1922-1945), the boomers (1943-1960), the busters (born 1961-1998), and the bridgers (1980-current).  Asides from sharing different generational historical markers (such as the end of the cold war, or the 9/11 attacks), the chart features categories ranging from family life, work ethic, to different attitudes common to each generational grouping.  What I found most interesting was how for the boomers and busters, family and work were the primary influences on their lives.  For the busters and bridgers, on the other hand, there is a very strong connection to technology, from the introduction of the VCR and Nintendo, to the DVD, Xbox and Play Station.  Though words such as “hard workers” and “service-oriented” marked the older generations in the workplace, words such as “techno-literate” and “technological-savvy” and “social networking” define the newer generations.