Offed with Your Head

Relavant to reading and class discussion:  I likes the different Super Mario brother examples of modding in video games.  I thought it might be interesting to see what other sort of forms pacman, the bread and butter of this video game class, could take through modding.

http://www.moddb.com/mods/unreal-pacman

This is a mix of pacman and the first person shooter game Unreal Tournament 3. For more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament_3

I don’t really have anything insightful to add to this, except that it is a very visually entertaining example of a mod for pacman. What I really like about this example is that it is mixing two games, which opens up for a lot of other variations of mixing favorite characters in different games.

Not directly relavant to current reading or class discussion: To quote Jamie quoting a wiki, “every [official] playtester chose to shoot into the crowd of civilians having received no instruction to do so, calling it “human nature.“‘

I suppose this is just a recurring theme in our class, actions in video games being comparable to actions in life, but calling choosing to shoot into a crowd having receive no instruction to do so, was a bit suprising to me.  IF this is the case, whether it be human nature in life, or just human nature in video games, I’m interested to know what happens when we blend the lines even more between the two worlds.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/humannature/archive/tags/video+games/default.aspx

“The Human Nature article on Slate‘s cover today is about a military drone-piloting system that looks like a video game but kills real people. You control it with joysticks and buttons. The company that developed it, Raytheon, sees it as a logical progression for recruits who come into the military knowing how to play games like Doom and Halo.

The question is: Will the transition be too smooth? Will these young pilots, reclining comfortably in their “virtual cockpits” in Nevada as their drones fly over Iraq, feel as though they’re playing a game?”

I don’t want to make any judgments because I think this could be a very touchy subject with many perspectives, but it is EXTREMELY thought provoking when we consider that it is our nature to shoot into a crowd of civilians.  Sorry this was so long!

Ah, controversy.

In class on Tuesday, I remember there being a ton of discussion about whether the dead-in-iraq film was really a memorial to the soldiers, or if it was disrespectful. Well, when I was searching for links relevant to class, I discovered an even bigger version of our class argument– the game Six Days in Fallujah. The battle of Fallujah was an important and intense battle in Iraq, and the video game company Atomic was working with a group of soliders before they left for Fallujah. When the soldiers came back, they asked Atomic to make a game to portray their experiences in the battle. Atomic agreed, and for a while, so did their publisher, Konami. However, when the game was announced, a ton of controversy and criticism popped up. Parents of soldiers who died in that battle were outraged, saying that it was belittling their children’s deaths by making them into a game.

So the discussion begins again– what is a memorial? Can a game be a memorial, or should the two categories never be mixed? This article explains some of the controversy of the game, and there’s also a an animation that touches on the Six Days in Fallujah game.

It seems as if people are very adamant about what kinds of things games can and can’t do. It’s so difficult for a game to break out of the standard mold and be something different, whether it be a memorial or a way to tell a story.

I may be a n00b, but clouds… really?

Prior to this class I played my fair share of video games, you definitely have to being the only girl in a family of three. I might have played video games, but that doesn’t mean I understood how they worked. Sure I could blow on the cartridge to get the N64 games to work and I can make sure the yellow cable is matched up to the yellow cable and the red to the red, but I was still your stereotypical n00b, and still am. I know absolutely nothing about game design or modding.

That’s not to say I don’t find it interesting, but all I knew about “patches” and “mods” were that super smart genius gamer people could do it if they could hack things. Apparently, it turns out most of that is true, but fans can be the hackers which I found surprising. I thought it was very interesting in the Galloway chapter that mods could range from creating a whole new game out of a game mod or i could just mean playing around with the visual aesthetics and making new levels. I know that I have absolutely no right to judge anyone on a gamic level, because I am a n00b, but I do feel it’s necessary.

I don’t get why anyone would want to take Super Mario and strip everything out of it until there is nothing but clouds left. I get creating a whole new game out of something, and maybe creating clouds just something that beginners to when mod-ing, but I’m of the opinion go big or go home. At least create a new map with new interactions for the characters to complete. Maybe even just new skins for the characters so you can make a satire with your friends a put it on youtube, but stripping everything down so there are only clouds just seems stupid.

If you click on the cloud link you can see exactly what Cory Arcangel created for his mod. Personally when I read about it I had super high expectations for an amazing new version of super mario, but I guess the reason I chose to post this is so that everyone else can see how pointless it is.

Not exactly Cory Arcangel’s Super Mario Clouds, but…

While reading Galloway’s chapter on countergaming, I very much focused on the idea of modding. I thought it was very interesting that Peter Wollen’s seven theses on countercinema could be used to create a similar list for countergaming. In searching for media to share, I found two videos on YouTube that, like Arcangel, also modify Super Mario – except in a different way. While these examples probably don’t fall under the category of “artist video game mods” (since Galloway states that most are completely noninteractive), these examples do illustrate interactivity vs. noncorrespondence and gamic action vs. radical action. Both mods stress the contrast between what the player expects will happen during game play, and what actually, unexpectedly happens as the modified levels are played. In this example, the levels are made extremely hard not only by the seemingly long, impossible jumps, but also by the presence of invisible blocks that can cause Mario to fall and die. Natural physics vs. invented physics is also subtly used in that sometimes you can travel right through walls or tubes, and other times, you can’t. (While there are other videos of someone providing humorous, profanity-filled voice over while these difficult levels are actually played, I chose to share this edited video instead so that the entirety of all the levels could be seen without the numerous deaths that inevitably occurred.) On the other hand, this example plays against the assumption that coins are good in order to make it appear that the level is very easy. The description for this video also includes a link where you can edit or create your own levels.

Killology in the News

You’ve no doubt heard about the horrific video of American soldiers firing on unarmed civilians in Iraq in 2007. In an article today in the New York Times, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is interviewed about the incident. Grossman, you may remember, is the “killology” expert quoted in the Simon Penny article on simulation and enaction. The NYT article is definitely worth reading.

Simon Penny Applied: The MW2 Controversy

Below is a link to a very contemporary, very relevant, and very controversial piece of “interactive entertainment” which may or may not support Penny’s argument.  If you are familiar with Modern Warfare 2 you might know it as the “No Russian” level.  Unfortunately, I cannot provide the level itself, so here is a clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rckkg2VuPQ

For those of you who don’t know, here’s the 2-second rundown: in the level “No Russian” you play as a terrorist leisurely strolling through an airport as your cohorts slaughter people left and right with huge machine guns.  Your participation is optional, but no instruction is given either way.  You cannot save the innocents or kill terrorists.

As you may imagine, the level was highly controversial and was removed from many countries’ versions of the game before release.  Even in the US version, likely the biggest  of all cesspools of decadence and gore warns the player beforehand that it may be disturbing and gives the option to skip the level entirely.  Naturally, different players have different reactions to such content.  Many were too disgusted to watch; others could care less; I for one laughed maniacally as soon as I realized what was happening and immediately took part in the slaughter.  To quote the controversy’s Wiki, “every [official] playtester chose to shoot into the crowd of civilians having received no instruction to do so, calling it “human nature”. Several players on IGN and Kotaku had stated doing the complete opposite when addressed with the level while having no prior knowledge of its existence.*”

Common objections to the level were that there was no recourse for the violence and no in-game expression of remorse or condemnation of the violence.  These complaints possibly imply that people need to be told that something isn’t okay and can’t rely on their own moral compasses, but they raise interesting questions nonetheless.  Having read Penny’s article, it’s unclear to me whether or not satisfying these complaints would solve the problem.  Penny makes it clear that these “training” devices instill reflexive responses that can be “different, even diametrically opposed” to the moral beliefs of the trainee.  Would including a condemnation in the game script eliminate (or at least reduce) the ability of such devices to train their operators?  Ponder away; your guess is as good as mine.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2

America’s Army Clip

I agree – it was certainly a lively class discussion today, although I was most interested in the discussion about the YouTube clip. I was intrigued by it, to say the least. The more I think about it, the more annoyed I am with the person for doing what he did. I found it a little bit disgusting and even offensive.

First of all, I agree with what Calvin said in class about how it could be offensive to the families of fallen soldiers. Their names are being associated with a cause that they might not agree with or support. I know that there was mention of a debate over who ‘owns’ the right to memorialize, but I think using other’s names in such a controversial piece as this one is just not appropriate and in bad taste. I feel like he is taking advantage of something tragic and tailoring it to his own agenda.

Second, it was clear that he was trying to show that the people playing the game were insensitive jerks by displaying the interaction between himself and the players on the chat screen, which he eventually got kicked off of. I felt he was taking advantage of the people playing the game by not telling them his purpose, which was not immediately obvious. I guess I felt like he did not even give the players a chance to respond to his actions – perhaps if the other players heard his message they might rethink whether or not they should play the game. Instead, they were purposefully portrayed in a negative light with no chance to defend themselves whatsoever.

Third, I was even more annoyed when I found out that he did performances of portions of this project in Britain… How in the world is the accomplishing anything? Isn’t the point to protest the game and to keep young Americans from playing – to make the players of the game realize that there are real-life consequences? What is the point of going to another country to protest a game that is meant for American citizens? Is he really trying to accomplish something, or does he just like stirring up trouble?

This guy reminds me of those people that stand outside the JC spouting off their stupid controversial opinions (or word vomit, as I like to call it).  They are just trying to start conflicts and then feed on the attention.  I feel like this was a lame piece of protest performance art because there are about 2 million better ways to get his point across without being such a jerk and where more people would be able to hear and consider his message.

I don’t understand why artists strive to do projects like this – they purposefully do something controversial and one step over the line of bad taste, and then when they are criticized act all attacked and innocent. If you read over the comments on the YouTube page, the artist’s responses to some of the posters are straight degrading. He talks to them like they are inexperienced 3 year olds.

Ugh. I’d be happy if we didn’t talk about this game anymore.

4-6-10 Class (today, just thought that looked official)

So I would say that the discussions in today’s class were among the more heated, stimulating and thought provoking we have had throughout the semester.  Although the games we discussed Killing JFk or whatever its called and the Columbine Massive Rpg were comparatively primitive or small compared to others like WOW or Half life etc, we did have some major divisions in the class.  This being said I wanted to respond to one argument that was made concerning the Columbine game.

  Some people were arguing that the game was showing the actions as satire and consequently should not warrant such a negative reaction from media etc.  I looked for some definitions of satire and found satire is “the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.”  While this seems appropriate for this kind of game I do not think that the majority of people view the game as necessary.  I think we pretty much ruled out this being a function of the graphics, but a game like Columbine is such a sensitive subject that I think professor Sample’s point on capitalizing on the work comes into play.  I dont think that a game is necessary to point out subtle satirical aspects when the vast majority of people clearly see the evil that was behind the actions in real life.  Because every sane person sees these actions as terrible the credibility of the designer saying he made it to “get into the minds of the two boys” comes into question.  Why make the game when everyone already knows how wrong they were?  It seems like it is simply rehashing old wounds in people who were really involved.

Any thoughts on this or corrections to what I was saying? I think this is a really interesting topic btw.

Games v. Real Life

I, like many other bloggers tonight, found the readings for tomorrow’s class to be thought provoking.  I agree with most of our class, as Catey referenced, that most people can distinguish between games and reality. However, I think that Simon Penny raised some interesting points in his article.  To start with, I really enjoyed his explanation of the common quality to sports training, martial arts, and military training to be “anti-illectuality.”  I think all of us (whether in school or sports) have been told that we were just over thinking and that once we stopped we would be successful.

Penny used this point to illustrate that training is only effective when it becomes automatic.  This occurs through lots and lots of practice.  He then went on to explain how the military uses videogames to begin this practice.  They have started to use games to simulate real life occurrences.  This is seen in games such as Marine Doom. The purpose of this game is to help desensitize soldiers from shooting humans. David Grossman (a retired Lieutenant Colonel) claims that other shooting videogames (in general) have the same effect on players-they start to think that shooting people is no big deal.

Although I agree with Penny that these simulation games serve as an effective medium for soldiers to practice, I don’t think that one can simply state that games impact reality for soldiers and therefore do the same for civilians.  Instead, I think the effect of games on reality all depends on context.  Yes, soldiers shoot targets shaped like people in order to train to ACTUALLY shoot people, but people do not play violent games, such as Call of Duty, for these same reasons.  I think there is a difference in how these two groups of players approach the game which therefore affects the connections with reality.  Soldiers play these games knowing that they are doing so in order to practice real life situations.  In contrast, I think it’s safe to assume that most players of COD do not see their playing as practice for real life.  Consequently, I think that it is true that games can, in fact, have real life consequences, but it is dependent upon how the player views the game.  If the player does not view violent games for practice in real life, it wont be.  Instead, it will be (as Dani explained), simply a way to improve hand-eye coordination and reaction time.

Docu-games

Reality Play by Joost Raessens introduced some interesting ideas about the use of videogames to reenact history so that one may experience an event. These so-called “docu-games” enable players to “transform play into a meaningful, interactive experience” in which the player can experience feeling, reflexivity, and action in a historical experience brought back for educational gameplay. He discusses numerous games but highlights four games in particular in his discussion of “docu-games.”  His four games of focus are: JFK  Reloaded, 9-11 Survivor, Waco Resurrection, and Escape from Woomera.

His discussion of 9-11 Survivor caught my interest the most and spurred me to look online for the game. Unfortunately, I was unable to locate it but I did find these screen shots of the game to help me visualize what the game would look like.

screen shots found here

While reading about this game, I thought to myself: How anyone play something like this? Yes, you may be able to experience the traumatic moments in fuller detail and grasp a better understanding for happened but at what cost? Wouldn’t it be very traumatic to play a game like this and put yourself in a situation where you the outcome is so painful? Does making a game about what happened really shed light on what happened that day?

And I guess if I were to play this game I would answer yes to all of the questions above. Yes, playing the game probably would give me more perspective on what went on that day and yes, it would hurt a great deal to play a game like this.

But games like these will always have a hard time reaching the public with their messages. Videogames just don’t have the same respect documentaries do. With many videogames promoting violence and mindless game play like Grand theft auto and Call of Duty, I feel like it would be very hard for docu-games to ever become popular.

Videogames are what you make of them

I think both of the articles for tomorrow’s class are fascinating and have valid points. While I think it’s hard to argue that videogames have absolutely no effect on the player’s ability, psyche, minset etc., I think the extent of that influence is definitely debatable. A large majority of the Penny  article discusses first person shooters and the fact that there are many real life simulators that help to improve the marksmanship of real life soldiers. While this is definitely valid, I don’t think that any videogame will ever make anyone a marksman or someone with a gun on a psychotic rampage. The real effect boils down to reflexes. Videogames help to train your reflexes visually and kinetically. So even though you are holding a gun in virtual reality, if approached with a similar situation in real life you would have a similar reflex to flip around and point/defend yourself against the object that is about to attack. (Regardless of whether or not you have a gun.)

I feel like this extends beyond first person shooters, because other games that require you to look for secrets or put puzzles together in your mind can have a real life effect as well. They help with things like multi-tasking and being able to assess a situation from multiple angles. Honestly, good reflexes and the ability to multi-task don’t sound too terrible to me.

Side note – I think it would be fascinating to play some of the games mentioned in the second article, if only from a psychological standpoint. Rather than being frowned upon, I think situational games of intense pressure and intensity like 9-11 survivor could be used to study the human psyche and learn about those people who go against the grain.

Unethical Videogame Results in Trigger Happy Teen… Or Not…

In class, it has been continually reiterated that individuals who lack the ability to differentiate between reality and videogames are mentally unstable or just downright stupid. The roles of sex and gender within videogames were deemed as having an insignificant influence on videogame players and the way in which women are viewed.

Yet, despite videogames having “no effect” on individuals divorce rates, eating disorders, and body image issues among women remain prevalent in today’s society. In today’s readings Simon Penny explores the concept of videogames in a different arena. Penny analyzes videogames as being capable of desensitizing individuals towards violence.

Penny introduces David Grossman, a retired Lieutenant-Colonel with an expertise in desensitizing soldiers in order to increase killing efficiency. Grossman strongly opposes violent videogames. He claims that the entertainment industry conditions youth in a militia-like style – that “they hardwire young people for shooting at humans”. Simon also argues that, videogame advocates do their best to downplay such associations.

When videogames are used in training soldiers to effectively kill the enemy, it simply seems ignorant to suggest that videogames do not alter the mindset of a given individual. Videogames cannot be ruled out as a catalyst for violence, sexism, and discrimination. We must honestly ask ourselves can/do videogames alter mindsets of individuals? Or, do they truly have no effect on individuals at all?

It must be realized that videogames do have an effect on people’s lives and that the extent of this effect must be questioned. On the other hand, is the extent of this effect really worth altering the current design, production, and marketing of violent videogames to more “ethical” standards? Probably not. But, if we are all currently being brainwashed by videogames, it would be kind of nice to know.

Interesting game review of Heavenly Sword (Gender Stuff)

So I thought it was really interesting that in class we were discussing Laura Croft’s character as dominant, aggressive and all sorts of things that are usually praised by independent professional women, maybe not aggressive but you know what I mean. In any case, I wanted to look around the internet for other characters who may embody similar characteristics. I came across this review of Heavenly Sword. Admitedly I have never played this game but was intrigued by this game review. Take a look, note how the guy talks about the characters gener, compares this game with God of War, and generally lauds the female character. That write up can be found here. http://www.epinions.com/review/Heavenly_Sword_for_PlayStation_3_36577901/content_408604020356
Since I have never played the game I wanted to find a picture with the main character so I Google imaged that and found this
http://www.threespeech.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/Nariko1.jpg
I’m not sure if anyone would elect to run into a fight dressed like her sooooo I think unfortunatley some people have some really really weird fantasies via videogames….but thats a different discussin. Enjoy.

Lara Croft vs. Barbie…whatever her last name is.

In class on Tuesday, we briefly touched on the topic of female role models in games.  While many of the females in the class have refuted the notion that protagonist Lara Croft provides a positive female role models for women and young girls, it’s interesting to look at the alternative for female role models in the video game world.  There’s Detective Barbie who is actually quite similar to the Lara Croft model, although toned down a bit in terms of action and violence. She’s running around island waterfalls trying to find a missing painting, all the while sporting a toned physique…not too different from her Tomb Raider counterpart, right?

I know that Barbie can still be considered a positive role model for young girls, although not because of her body, but because she represented an independent woman. I feel like from these commercials the manufacturers of the games want to get the same message across — that their female protagonist is tough, in charge, kicking ass, and looking good all the while.  And honestly, what kind of woman doesn’t want to do that?

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a link to a commercial for my favorite female video game character, Carmen Sandiego, who is equally bad-ass and represents similar values.

Lara Croft as a role model…seriosuly?

I was very intrigued by the discussions that went on in class last Tuesday.  We covered many topics surrounding gender, especially in relation to Lara Croft and Tomb Raider.  One particular topic I found the most interesting was in response to one of the survey questions- that many female players would view Lara Croft as a positive role model after playing this game.  I was shocked that this was the most popular answer to how female players would view this character.   I most definitely have an opinion on this topic, but decided on the spot that this was what I was going to write my response blog about.  Therefore, instead of voicing my opinions, I simply sat back and listened to the arguments of others.

I understand that many females would like the character of Lara Croft simply because she is a woman and that is something rarely seen in videogames.  Therefore, they probably feel that they can identify with her more so than other videogame characters.  However, I think that viewing her as a role model takes it to an entirely different level.

I, for one, am a female and do not-in any way, shape, or form view Lara Croft as a role model.  I know that I am just one girl, and cannot by any means speak for all women, but I feel as if many women would have a similar view on the topic.  Don’t get me wrong, the character of Croft does, I think, portray some important qualities that are good for girls to be aware of.  The fact that you can be both attractive and powerful, for instance.  She also demonstrates a desirable amount of control-which, I think, is considered an attractive attribute by both genders…however, like someone pointed out it class, how is killing for what you want an attractive attribute?  is that really something you want to strive for? hurting and putting everyone else down to achieve your goals?.. I think we can all agree that selfishness is not a sought after characteristic in a person.  Also, yes, she is the combination of beauty and power…but seriously? Why does her character have to be so, for lack of a better term, “sexy.”  I feel that there is a clear difference of connotation between the word “sexy” and the word “beautiful”…I think girls or women, females of any age for that matter, should be aware that you can be beautiful without having the double-d chest.

Basically, what I’m trying to get at, is that although Croft does display some positive qualities, I do not think that her character as a whole would be perceived by most females as a positive role model.