Preparation for Final

I am thinking about two different subjects which would involve first-person shooters and adventure games.

With adventure games I would like to compare Montfort's article on Interactive Fiction with games that are not traditionally text-based but that resemble those like Adventure and Zork. Mainly I would focus on Montfort's points about Interactive Fiction incorporating elements of both game and story as the new media could not really be defined by one or the other. I would like to compare Adventure and Zelda:Twilight Princess and show their similarities even as the medium developed past text based games but retains many similar qualities.

First, Zelda like other interactive fiction tells a story through the players interaction with the machine. The story of Link and his quest to save Zelda and defeat Gannon is related through the player's interaction with the game, characters in it, and the items he collects. This is similar to Adventure in that the player reads the text and decides how and where to proceed in order to discover the story of the deserted house, what lies beyond the grate in the yard, etc. Although Zelda is distinctly linear and the story line the character follows is more developed than the one the player imagines in Adventure, the basic elements are the same so that the player interacts in order to "read" the story.

Second, Zelda is definitely more game than some interactive fiction as the player is constantly rewarded when he advances his character past bosses to reach the final boss Gannon and beat the game. However, one could see Zelda as game embedded in story, like Adventure, as the player must interact with other characters and write a simple story in order to figure out how to progress to the next level. Especially in Zelda there are riddles that the player must decipher in order to unlock a door or locate items. Montfort explains that this is a feature of Interactive Fiction that helps remind the player of the puzzle qualities of games like Adventure and Zork. Solutions to riddles can provide the player with a sense of reward as well as help to elaborate more about the story that is being "played."

Both Zelda and Adventure contain these elements of puzzle and story that help to illustrate the importance of both elements in the new media of video games. What is important is that the player is given a world through which he must interact in order to solve puzzles and thereby progressing through the sessions of a narrative that follows his actions. As Interactive Fiction they help to bridge the gap between the two sides of the debate about video game theory as well as provide good examples of the evolution of video games.

Simulated Reality and Telling the Difference

Violence is too prevalent in reality to assume that kids who play video games get their inspiration for school shootings from the first-person shooters they enjoy. With the recent shootings at Va. Tech, it is hard for the public to examine the nature of the shootings subjectively as they would rather generalize one kid's problems so as to find a scapegoat and perhaps prevent future massacres. While this is of course a good idea, attacking simulations of reality is not the failsafe solution. Recently I was watching an interview with Quentin Tarantino on his film Kill Bill. http://youtube.com/watch?v=NYu6fpaNrBA The interviewer asked him what his response was to critics who claimed that his movies had no message but simply glorified violence. He responded that "cool" parents should take their twelve year olds to see it because it was highly entertaining. The interviewer became upset and claimed that twelve year olds could not tell the difference between films and reality. Being a seventh-grader myself once, I remember being perfectly able to tell the difference between deaths and violence in films and that in real-life. Both affected me, but I remember always being more impacted by real-life occurrences of car crashes, shootings and Columbine versus The Matrix. This interview also reminds me of the first Gamer Theory chapter that explains coming out of "The Cave" arcade and having a hard time adjusting to the reality of the shapes you see outside versus the shadows in the game that you are used to. I do not think that it is the ability to distinguish the two (reality and simulations) that kids lose (or do not have) because, like Kristina said last week, there is a difference between aggressive behavior and aggressive play and kids can tell the difference.

People who play aggressively in controlled environments are aware of the fact that the actions they take in simulations have no affect on the outside world, besides perhaps their own frustration and anger rising. To reiterate another of Kristina's points, having the control over the environment leads one to think that video games would be more of a release rather than an expression of violent tendencies. Being able to power off the game, save the game and rest, pause the game to look up the cheat codes, these actions help to detach the player from the alternate reality he or she may be trying to immerse themselves in. They are no longer squinting when they emerge from "The Cave" but rather frame the game in their computer or television screen, giving that simulation a completely different meaning in which the lines are not blurred between reality and fantasy.

Penny argues in his article that simulated play is in fact a learning tool for how humans behave in the real world. While this is true, especially in cases like flight simulators and even army-training simulators, people do not lose the distinction between killing someone on screen and killing them in real-life. Just because the actions are simulated and those that play these types of games learn how to kill people, it does not mean that players then lose their moral sense of right and wrong and that they immediately enact what they learn in simulation. Perhaps then video games do teach kids and adults how to be violent, but the fact that they turn these simulations into real-life situations is not indicative of video games advocation for violence. It illustrates rather their tendency to be violent in real-life and their choice to apply what they have learned in simulations to real-life situations where it is not necessary at all (such as high-school revenge versus defending oneself on a real battlefield).

I think this point can be stretched further in response to that first chapter in GamerTheory which asserts that all of life has become a game of sorts where people now work and consume in order to "win." Perhaps consumer culture has become a sort of game, but treating all of life as if the money and family and lives that hang in the balance during war as if they were simply pawns you manipulate to reach an ultimate goal is not entirely correct. As stated above, the difference between games and reality are the real-life consequences. People who would treat life as a game they could win might often lose everything in that quest, and although one must take risks in life, they are certainly better calculated and involve different outcomes that may not always lead to an ideal "winning" lifestyle. I think that having that simulated reality where one controls everything is more correct than assuming that all of life has become a game and that video games have become the inspiration for such a change. If anything, life has become so meaningless for so many Americans wrapped up in consumer culture that escape through simulations and cinema, with their glorification of violence, sex, drugs, romance, is one of the few ways that Americans feel happy.

Storytelling

Regarding Murray's article about video games telling stories, I think that Fable could be used by the player in order to write a story despite the fact that their is a linear path the player must follow. The ability to write a story using the medium does not depend entirely on the open-situation that is created in games like The Sims but rather can be written through the experience of the gamer. In Fable the player is able to create the personality type, the physical appearance, and the motivation of the character you play. Ultimately, the player discovers why the character's parents had been murdered, what happened to his gifted sister, and that he can seek revenge for being orphaned. The interesting part of this game is having so many options for side quests and developing your character's life while reaching the ultimate goal of the game. Essentially, the player can write more of the story than he or she is initially given. With the new computer version of the game, the player can marry whomever he chooses, can talk with every other character in the game (which advances his status throughout the town, whether the others have missions for your character or not), and his profession leads to completely different experiences in missions and fighting against enemies.

The game allows the player to create a number of different experiences that appear to be more focused on the experience of the game rather than mastering it in order to beat the game. The player does not have to increase his or her fighting skills, but can steal money, raise a family, buy a town, or a number of other scenarios. Playing the game in different ways in order to simply explore levels or the limit to which you can mold your character gives a different meaning to playing Fable than simply playing games, which is completely possible as well. The gamer plays with the medium repeatedly, having different experiences with each profile which then can be shared among friends, online with video clips, similar experiences, etc. The game exists beyond the playing of it and takes on new meanings for the player as a means of "story-making" entertainment. I thought that Fable could be an example of a game that serves as evidence for Murray's point about cyber-drama but that was not completely open-ended like The Sims, so even tough games do have linear plots to get the player to the end of the game, the player can create as much of the story as he or she wants simply for the experience.

Donatello was always my favorite turtle.

Playing old arcade games on the xbox 360 is enlightening. I played Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on Xbox Live and was amazed at the difficulty of a game that is played with the traditional two buttons and t-pad of older games. It was weird to play a game I was so familiar with without hearing the jingle of a few dollars worth of quarters in my pocket and sitting down to a smaller screen instead of standing in front of a huge console including a joystick and huge buttons.

I could not remember the game being that hard back in the arcade when I was younger. Let's just say I would have been out fifty dollars had I played the whole game through with quarters! As soon as I started playing I noticed how difficult it was to move around on the 3d-like screen so that I was lined up to attack the Foot soldiers. I remembered that you had to follow the enemies shadows rather than try to attack their body. There were always ten to fifteen enemies that attacked at once which made it hard to advance with any more than half of your life remaining, plus the pizza box health was not plentiful. The difficulty of the game increased with number of players, but that just means that the number of enemies increased.

Although it was harder to play than I had remembered, it was also over much faster. There were only five levels, and since I did not have to keep feeding a machine quarters and take my time avoiding enemies so as not to die, the game was finished in fifteen minutes. It was apparent after I had respawned a hundred times that the objective of the game was not to learn the story of why the Ninja Turtles must defeat Shredder, or to save the city from his huge Drome-thing, but to pump in as many quarters as you could. For a media with such potential to create amazing technology and even beautiful works of art, arcades sure were a rip-off, scamming kids out of their hard-earned allowances so that they could play a video game about their favorite cartoons. As much as I loved arcades, I should have saved that money or invested in something equally as geeky as comic books, which would have at least paid off.

However, since my experience in arcades was always great, I suppose I cannot say that the designs of these games were entirely bad. The socialization between multiple players is something that I miss. It is so much fun to be standing next to friends or even strangers and calling for them to help you or distributing high-fives when you beat a boss. I have written before that I find the online world of gaming, while it connects you to millions around the world, still does not have the same impact as standing around with friends for hours trying to beat Ninja Turtles. I was connected with physical beings rather than the representation of someone through their WoW avatar. Though I think that both are valid ways of socializing, I prefer an afternoon at the arcade.

Mass Effect

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/rpg/masseffect/news.html?sid=6166898&om_act=convert&om_clk=newlyadded

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/m/masseffect/

I am not sure how many of you have seen this, and I meant to post it earlier but was tied up with midterms. These links are articles, pictures and trailers for the new RPG Mass Effect, which is coming out for Xbox360. The graphics, game play, and even paratextuality of this game are all important as far as what we have been discussing in class as of late.

The characters and set in this game are inching closer to that idea of responsive AI and realistic situations as the player can interact with characters on a level that exceeds most regular voice acted peripheral characters in other games. As the article mentions, for instance, you can interrupt them which affects how they and others see you! Their facial expressions and even the matte and features of the skin on these characters is so realistic that it is impossible not to impacted by them. The setting in this game is also very realistic as the objects and the landscape react to the characters within them, such as being able to move or hide behind crates. This feature is not original of course, but it adds to the experience.

Considering that one can gather more information about the game through the internet and by experiencing some scene from the game itself, this game further proves as an example of the paratextuality of video games, however I do not think that it compares to the timeline of Resistance: Fall of Man for the PS3. But Mass Effect does exist and does have fan base that creates a certain text for the game (before it is even available to the public) that illustrates the paratextuality of the game.

Overall, this game demonstrates the length to which developers and producers are willing and desire to go in order to create a game that is so life-like that the audience will be absorbed in the story as well as their avatar. It was interesting that they decided the player could not rename Shepherd (the main character) and that the article writer speculates that it has to do with all the voice acting. I think then that this game will engross players not as if they were in the game themselves but as masters of a universe that just happens to follow the story of one particular man. This can have just as much impact as the first person point of view that makes the player feel as if he is in the game as Mass Effect gives the player almost entire control over Shepherd that one is almost forced to play out the story and not simply run through the game shooting bad guys (which is probably why this game is an RPG instead of a first-person shooter).

On a side note I think it is interesting that the developers decided to use sci-fi story lines and aliens as characters in order to show off their talents as realistic game designers, instead of working on an all-human cast. This is good for someone like me because I prefer the sci-fi aspect of shooting games to those where the avatar must kill humans. As far as game violence goes it is less realistic and I have an easier time pulling the trigger. I am not averse to game violence, but killing other people just never struck my interest. I wonder if game developers then choose the sci-fi backdrop versus killing other people when they consider game ratings and marketing. It would show then that there is an important connection between the paratextuality of games and their development that exceeds the glowing reviews and fan fiction of gamers and actually enters a separate sphere of politics.

Alternate Reality and Canons

Regarding our recent conversations on canons and what is accepted as part of a canon and for what reason can lead to questions of video games entering a canon of literature. In Jones's post this week about alternate gaming realities creating engrossing stories and well-visited places like Hogwarts, the question can be raised "If a game based on a canon of literature that both draws from and expands on some sort of popular literature, such as Harry Potter, would this game be accepted as part of the canon or merely as an extension of the story in a different medium?" I think that this question is relevant in many current games that are based and mirror popular books or movies, but what is most important would be some sort of video game, like the one based on The Matrix, that actually told a part of the story and was and is considered part of the canon, similar to the graphic novel and the anime Matrix films. I suppose that a video game would then have to expand on the story rather than simply repeat it in game form, but it is an interesting idea that games could some time become part of canon that includes both paper text and mechanics of games.

Speaking of mechanics of games and consoles, it is interesting that something that is not an episodic saga could be considered something similar to a canon, specifically Final Fantasy. As the universe, characters, plots, etc. change from game to game, all games could be considered part of the Final Fantasy canon because their link is the game mechanics and the way that the game is played and the player interacts with the story. It is interesting and I think lends to the validity of textual studies (in the way that our class examines video games) as it illustrates the importance of the simple text of the game and what makes a game important in the eyes of the eyes of the players as well as the developers.

Gaming Audience Shifts

http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2007/2/12/7015

This ars techinica article refers to the numbers of games bought in 2006 and what it reveals about who are playing video games now. The genres that were most commonly purchased were sports games and license games (games developed with Disney titles, etc.) illustrating that a wider variety of people are playing video games and that the market is making tons of money off games sold to people who are not as interested in the high-tech hard-core games. The concern of the author of the article is that the games that hard-core gamers play tend to cost much more money to manufacture than the games that topped the best-seller list, therefore the hard core games may lose their place in the market. It makes me wonder why video games are produced and if some are designed as representative of the potential of video games to serve as an art form, as prototypes or groundbreaking technology, or if they are simply designed to sell copies.

The compromise would be something like Zelda Twilight Princess, designed with beautiful graphics and serving as a fulfillment of Miyamoto's ideal of the stoic hero while remaining wildly popular with hard-core gamers as well as casual users. It seems that there are many more games however that simply focus on selling copies, like Madden, where graphics hardly change, where game play is the same, and where the only reason to develop a second or third Madden game would be to sell to those who had not bought a previous copy or who like sports games and do not really purchase games as a "connoisseur". If these games were to become the only available because they sold the most, I expect that video game development would slow and that console hardware technology would also plummet as games would not require faster and larger memories. However, these games and the new Wii console illustrate the growing popularity of video games and the new heights the technology could reach. Plus, there will probably always be a market for hard-core gamers considering that they would demand or create their own high tech games.

So I understand the author's concern, yet I think that these lists demonstrate a more positive future for video gaming considering that more people are buying games and consoles who are not hard-core gamers and that they could potentially appreciate the games and technology as art forms or even legitimate representatives of society.