HNRS 353

One of the first things I noticed in the “Is That Just Some Game? No, It’s a Cultural Artifact” article was that film and video games are still closely linked, even in their historical preservation. What surprised me, then, is that no one on Lowood’s committee was involved in film. I feel as if a filmmaker, reviewer, writer, or critic could have provided a unique perspective on the most important video games.

What I found the most interesting was that they chose games that gave rise to particular genres–multiplayer, competitive (obviously), real-time game strategy, etc. I would have thought this committee would have looked more closely at the games that had the most cultural impact, seeing as they were looking to preserve these games as cultural artifacts.

Having said that, I don’t think the committee was completely wrong. I think their choices of Spacewar!, Mario Brothers, and Sim City were right on target. But Sensible World of Soccer? Really? Now, I am by no means an intense gamer, but I had never heard of this game. After researching it briefly, I found that it’s a relatively popular game that has been remade several times over the past decade. I just don’t see it in the same category as Super Mario Brothers.

Mario is almost unarguably a cultural icon–from the first edition of the game to the multitude of Mario games that exist today, many kids have grown up both knowing who Mario is and seeing him as a part of their childhood. My sister, who grew up in the 80s, certainly did–and so did I, as a 90s kid.

No reasons were given for the choice of Sensible World of Soccer, so for those of you who have heard of it/played it, I would be interested in your perspective on why it fits into the category. As for the rest of the class, I would like to know how you would change this list–what games you would remove and what games you would take off?

It is interesting that Mr. Lowood and his teams’ canon list for preserving video games is modeled similar to the work of the National Film Preservation Board. During the course of the semester we have looked at how films and games are intertwined or draw off each other (especially games drawing from film). It makes sense than that to preserve these games they would use a method similar to what is done for film.

I had to read the article twice to figure out why video games needed to be preserved officially. I understood how these were revolutionary games, but it was during the second read through that I took in how the difference of hardware can render a game unusable. I naively assumed that new hardware was old hardware with additional features and that everything was backwards compatible. This is not the case. New hardware works differently from the old and unless old hardware is preserved, old games won’t be able to be preserved. The work around is a method we are familiar with – using an emulator to play ROMs (digital copies of old games). This brings me to the most surprising new information I got out of the article – that emulators break copyright laws. Mr. Lowood plainly states that emulators “technically violate copyright laws.” Looking this up, I found that emulators appear to be legal, but ROMs are not. It’s legal to have the ability to play the game but if you download a ROM it is illegal. Nintendo’s website on Legal Information (Copyright, Emulators, ROMs, etc) has more information on this which is relatively clear. I speculate that some companies legitimize emulators and allow ROMs of their old games to be played. It would be interesting to look into this further and clarify the legality of emulators and ROMs.

Video games have obviously had an impact on society in a similar way to art forms such as movies and music. The idea to preserve the video games in a canon is excellent. One of the most fascinating parts of this class has been to see the evolution of video games over the years. These game designers are taking that and allowing everyone to see that evolution. It is interesting that they picked those games as their top 10. They are games that everyone has heard of and probably played, as well as games from different categories (god games, one person, multiplayer, online, etc.). I definitely agree that Super Mario Bros 3 should be on that list because it is a game that almost every person can relate to their childhood. Video games are a billion dollar industry, just like the movie business. If movies should be preserved as they have with the National Film Preservation Board, then video games should definitely follow suit. The only question I have would be how they are going to decide which games make it on the list and which do not. How should they decide if a game is actually worth preserving in the canon? Would it be based on how many people have bought or played the game or would it be based on how well-known a game is? I think this is a great idea. Once all of the minor details are figured out, it will be fascinating to see which games make the cut and which games aren’t worth preserving.

I was fascinated by Heather Chaplin’s article on Henry Lowood’s “Video Game Canon” idea. I think video games should absolutely be preserved and that it’s a great concept. These aren’t teenagers or random people picking the games, these are extremely intelligent researchers who have considered the games’ historical significance and “fun” factor and chosen very well, in my opinion, which games to archive.

Video games have gone from something purely recreational to a societal trait, especially in the United States. They are factored into sociological research, from how the games affect children’s early education to extreme situations where violence is involved (ex. Columbine High School shootings, researching the violent games that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris played before the massacre). Video games should absolutely be archived; they are as much a piece of history as anything else.

Jason Nelson’s anti-game “This is How You Will Die” fits best out of all his games into Galloway’s counter-game categories.  First, Nelson foregrounds TIHYWD in that, while the player does not see any coding or visual programming, he does witness the rules of the game as the random predictions spin around before bestowing you your death sentence.  Second, TIHYWD perfectly conforms to Galloway’s predictions of aestheticism.  The 2D graphics, while extremely minimal and basic, play a much greater part in the work than game play.  Since the player merely clicks one button to begin the cycle, the emphasis is on the generated text.  While TIHYWD does realistically model the physics of the spinning choices, the illusion is broken by two transparent stripes that partially reveal additional possibilities for your death sentence.  Unlike his other games, TIHYWD refuses to interact the viewer, probably to make an artistic statement that we have no choice in our death; figuring it out is as likely as winning big at the slot machines.  As an unavoidable result, Nelson fails to achieve a radical action, merely relying on his strange graphics and eccentric death predictions to make his game nontraditional.

Personally, I feel that Nelson’s anti-clean, anti-organized, anti-minimalist graphics become a hinderance to the message of his games.  While they spoil TIHYWD less than the others, these amateurish skins undermines his legitimacy (I didn’t feel safe clicking on any of the links) and often make his messages unreadable.  I understand that it’s part of his message and style, but the messy, thrown-together style of Nelson’s work makes me feel that he does not respect me as a player and does not care enough about his game enough to make it visually pleasant.  Personally, I preferred the subtle, implied meaning presented in the minimal, pristine skin of Every Day the Same to Nelson’s cluttered portrayal of his enigmatic messages.  As a player, his seemingly-careless graphics fail to engage me enough to figure out the complex (and doubtless meaningful) puzzle he presents.