http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

After our discussion in class, I wanted to look further into what others have defined flow as and whether Whalen was describing flow, or describing a trans. This article is really interesting for two reasons. First, it looks at different areas and explains how people in those areas can achieve flow, such as athletes, musicians, and even spiritual flow. Also, there is a graph set up mapping other states of mind that are comparable to flow on an axis of challenge and an axis of skill level. It is really interesting to see where each state of mind falls.

The past discussions this week have reminded me of the learning games I played throughout my childhood. My brother and I loved playing Mathblaster, Gizmos & Gadgets, and Treasure Mathstorm!. Although some gamers are critical of the cut scenes and strong story lines of the videogames they play, I found that the story in these computer games was essential to the game. It could be because the games were geared towards education and not ‘play’ or ‘fun’, but I often found that getting to the next cut scene was the focal point of the gameplay for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp8FpkR_Lao

I don’t mean to be repetitive, but as you all already know, videogames just aren’t my “thing.”  That being the case, I find myself putting, what I consider to be, way too much time and energy into the videogames we are assigned to play.  You would all laugh if you watched me die over and over and over again, but I continue to play anyway in order to reach a higher level of understanding.  This last game we were assigned to play, Don’t Look Back, I found to be quite interesting.  I could tell there was some sort of story line it was following, but I did not pick up on it right away.  Granted, this could be because after playing for half an hour I only made it through a quarter of the game.  Therefore, I first found a youtube video that took me through the whole game (so if you are like me you can click here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kVFEeazPkA

and watch the entire game unfold).  Then, I found an article describing the basis or story line of the game.  So here

is just another game that, according to the article, (although it is not blatantly obvious) contradicts Aarseth.  Personally, I enjoyed this article because it reassured me that this game was more than just a game.

As with most of the articles we’ve read, I had a hard time focusing on the articles (probably because I’m not the greatest fan of videogames and for me, this wasn’t the funnest read). I had an even harder time developing my own thoughts about the articles. Nevertheless, I tried to buckle down and come up with a few thoughts:

Originally, I agreed with Aarseth and thought that games were just games and that a computer game was a game of simulation and not narration. The few games that narrated, or told you what to do, were the games probably that tanked.

However, after finding this game , I have learned to think otherwise. Perhaps I should hold off on telling you a little bit about the game and let you all figure it out yourselves. Or maybe not…

In a nutshell, this game tells a story and then let’s you play. Depending on how far along you get, the game resumes the role of a storyteller and tells you the ending.

I now think that games and stories are not mutually exclusive. Games can tell stories and this one certainly does. It uses two forms, narration and simulation and the combination of both make for an interesting game.

I don’t know much about videogames but I would now assume that the more popular ones use both simulation and narration to keep you entertained (like Final Fantasy). So why the hoopla about games and storytelling? Why can’t we make more games with good storylines? In a youtube video  I’ve found, the answers to such questions are all provided.

If “delight strikes when we recognize the patterns but are still surprised by them” (Koster 94), then do you enjoy playing the following game?

http://www.addictinggames.com/thisistheonlylevel.html

Markuu questions “why everything should be represented objectively to a player who is always assumed to be in a normal and not altered perceptual state” (Markuu 23) This game portrays what happens when the norm is altered and the altered norm then becomes the underlying feature of the game. Issues of standard and accepted control keys, as discussed in class, are exemplified within the game. The frustration or excitement level achieved by the player can differ based on reaction interpretation. Also, Espen claims that “Games are not “textual” or at least not primarily textual… central “text” does not exist — merely context” (Espen 9) Text acts as the narrator of the above game. Without the text would the game be as effective? Or does the text simply reflect the contextual elements of the game thus rendering itself useless?

So this is piggy-backing off of Brandi’s post, but I completely agree with the points that she made.

Like Brandi said, stories have been around since humans have had a need to communicate. Stories were originally created for the purpose of spreading knowledge that has already been obtained by other people. Only later did they evolve into a form of leisure time pleasure.

What I find interesting is that Koster’s whole argument is that “fun is the act of mastering a problem mentally” or, in essence, learning. Now, as academics have come to classify, there are three main types of learning: auditory, kinesthetic and visual. A story that is simply written down on a piece of paper can only serve as a good medium for those that learn via an auditory or visual style, or potentially a combination of the two. Even stories transcribed into plays and dramas can really only play with auditory and visual learning. In contrast, a video game easily conquers all three learning styles in one by providing spoken plot lines and music (auditory), an ability to actually try your hand at a task (kinesthetic) and being able to take in what you’re learning through pictures and movement (visual). So if anything, video games should be considered uber stories as they clearly trump the original.

I also wanted to comment on  Koster’s argument that “games are largely about getting people to see past the variations and look instead at the underlying patterns.” However, I feel that Escape The Bookstore 2 easily challenges this idea. Most games that are classified under an adventure genre would have multiple, similar challenges that lead up to a big boss, like going through the dungeons in Zelda and ending up at Gannondorf. However, in “Escape the Bookstore 2,” there really is no pattern that I can see. There is just incessant clicking that will hopefully lead you to an exit from the room. So would this game still be considered a game in Koster’s eyes?

While reading the article about Combat, something cought my attention that I take to be significant in today’s world: violence. It has been noted how Atari in its early stages was limited in terms of its memory capability and therefore affected how much game coding it could handle. So the games were more about creating competition and not so much about realism and graphics. This was great in terms of making the games used friendly and more importantly family friendly. The games presented little to none indication into violence. In the game tank, the tank would just spin in place instead of blowing up or soemthing. But as gaming consoles increased, so did the game codes, which ultimately effected the game forms. Mortal Combat, which was released in 1992, was one of the earliest violent games. This was released 13 years after Atari was relased, so by that time developers and gaming systems were much more advanced. This game had heavy violence with blood and many though that this was done to publicize the game. There would be moves where body parts could be ripped off the opponents. Surprisingly, there was heavy popularity of this game as well. According to a Blog titled, Evolution of  violence, Mortal Kombat was a starter of things. As technology and consoles became more advanced, coding of course became a playground and games such as Grand Theft Auto Series came about, which are extrememly popular. The reason for this popularity is the countless variations that are within the game. There have been many games such as Soldier of Fortune and Thrill Kill,  which didnt last long since they were solely violent games. Thats an interesting point, which brings back the idea of how our brain have fun. As more variations are introduced, our brain is more engaged. So as the consoles developed, along did the codes and so did violence in the games. This added element to games leads to the fact that violent games being extremely popular.

As discussed in class, each console has its own set of limitations depending on multiple factors. While we concentrated mainly on that Atari 2600, some of the current generation consoles were mentioned as well, and I felt that it would be pertinent to see what people were saying about the limitations of the today’s current consoles. Another topic that ties in with discussing the limitations of a console is the idea of porting games from one console to another. I had briefly made a comment about this during class, talking about the Madden franchise and how EA is now developing games for the Wii from the ground up, rather simply porting xbox 360 or PS3 versions with lower graphics and less in game content. What I had not considered was that there are a lot of people complaining about the limitations developers are encountering between the two higher powered consoles of the current generation. In the article I found (which can be accessed here), it discusses that many gamers are complaining that certain PS3 games are getting more content than the xbox 360 versions, even though this is due to circumstances beyond the control of the developers. These circumstances include the fact that the PS3 discs can hold 40GB more than those of the xbox 360 (due to the PS3 being blu-ray compatible), which the writer notes allows developers to do things such as run subtitles and live speech simultaneously. It also appears that developers compensate for the longer time it takes to create games for the PS3 by giving the games added content as compared to their counterparts on the 360. This has caused certain gamers to cry foul by labeling this as unfair. What do you think, is it a fair trade off that the owners of a PS3 get more content since they have to wait longer to play the game? And should the developer really be blamed for taking advantage of the fact that they can do more with a game on a more powerful system than on a less powerful one? Some may say a developer should push the system as far as they can, but others are not so keen on the idea if it means the version on their system does not get all the bells and whistles of the ‘better’ developed version.

This question has been popping up a bunch of times in this blog and is rather swiftly answered in the Bogost piece we read for this week, where Bogost’s answer is probably closest to mu, and is an answer that is delivered rather quickly. While he makes some good points, I think he answers the question too quickly, and so I found this article. The author’s arguments are a little shaky in places. To try to get the reader to at least consider his ideas, he makes a lot of comparisons to other things that would more intuitively (but still somewhat hesitantly) be called art, such as gymnastics, and then addresses issues that video games might run into that these don’t, such as the issue of competition and it being fundamentally opposed to art. As the article progresses the author explains how video games are also different from the things to which he compares them in different ways.

Overall I think this presents a fairly worthy perspective on an issue that Bogost seems to dismiss perhaps too quickly.

That’s the question answered at http://www.guimp.com/ where the entire website is only 18×18 pixels. Some of the notable games you can play in an insanely shrunken form include Pong, Space Invaders, and my personal favorite, Pacman.   This little site is ingenious as it shows how the gameplay of these early games can be boiled down to almost nothing while still retaining the key elements that allow the games to be playable (and dare I say it, fun?).  Of course, in Pacman, you’re reduced to only a single “ghost” but any more than one would easily be overwhelming in a game of this size.  What do you expect with only 324 pixels of information?  In any case, if you have a few extra minutes, Guimp is definitely a fun site to check out.

Hey everybody!

I remembered the other day in class, Professor Sample had mentioned the ET game for Atari, which was pretty much a failure. I found a link to play it here:

http://www.2600online.com/et.html

I thought since we are discussing Atari and all of its success leading to the modern day videogame, that we could also mention this failed game. This can also relate to the Combat in Context article which discussed the various levels of a game. Especially touching on the fifth level: Reception and Operation, ET simply doesn’t deliver. This level discusses the meaning of the game and the relation it has to the player; however ET has none of this as he simply wanders and falls into holes. The game offers no sense of learning and therefore no fun, but enjoy! 🙂

Reading Montfort’s piece on Combat instantly made me think of a game I’ve loved since I was old enough to curl my fingers around a Playstation d-pad: Worms Armageddon, for PS1.   (screenshot)  The game is just your basic turn-based team strategy deal, but things Montfort discussed made me think of this game for a lot of reasons.  The innocent depiction of violence, the need for multiple players, the startling lack of required narrative and background story, and the effect changing only small aspects of the game (in this case, randomly generated islands to fight on) has on gameplay.

Seeing as this is a seeker post, I should provide online examples of this game.  I tried, but the results were horribly depressing; it seems Worms has spawned an unfortunately populous generation of abominations called “cute shooters”.  So instead I’ll provide a video of genuine gameplay.

In class we discussed all the different kinds of play that Caillois classified. He included Agon, Alea, Mimicry, and Ilnix. I found his break down very insightful, but a bit confusing due to all the crossing that can happen. Most games, most good games anyways, involve many elements (or pull from more than one of these categories) so as to keep the players interested in the game.

The category that most interested me was Ilnix. I was surprised that it was considered a category in and of itself. Sure it’s fun to play games that get you dizzy in such as the merry-go-round or go on roller coasters, but I’d never considered it a category by itself. What interested me more than this was the crossing over of other categories with Ilnix. For the most part Ilnix seemed like a pretty independent category where as a lot of games are hybrids of Agon, Alea, and Mimicry. I couldn’t think of any games where Ilnix would cross with Alea. The only example of Mimicry and Ilnix crossing was the example Caillois used of people diving off of poles and spinning in other countries imitating birds, and I had never heard of it until the reading. The cross overs are far and few between.

I actually found a version of Tetris online that is called “First-Person Tetris.” It is far and away the most difficult version of Tetris I have ever played and incorporates Agon with Ilnix in a most surprising way. I won’t explain how because the shock I received when starting to play this was probably the best part of playing the game. But I do recommend trying this interesting and rare hybrid of categories.