Two posts in one day, I know, what can I say. Dr. Jones called me out and made me feel officially like a slacker, but don't worry, I'll get caught back up. So, without further ado...
There's always talk about video games mimicking reality and the consequences of that. Video games get blamed for making kids violent and desensitizing them and maybe to an extent this is true, maybe there are people out there who honestly can't tell the difference, but I think for most of us, video games serve as an escapism. And the realer the game sometimes, the better.
Take first person shooters or any of the GTA games. We know we're not actually killing anyone for real, that's the point, but who, in all honesty hasn't been so frustrated at someone that, even though you weren't serious, you thought about killing that person? This sounds morbid, but it's normal. Hopefully you don't actually want that person dead, but you're so frustrated, you need the release. Video games provide this. You can kill enemy soldiers in Call of Duty or go on a rampage through the city in GTA 3, you're not actually committing these acts, but they offer some sort of output for you negative energy. It's a little bit easier than reading a book to accomplish this. There are times when I'm frustrated and want to be alone so I can just open a good text and read, but I can never remember wanting to read a book out of anger. Slamming buttons and squeezing the controller sometimes get the stress out better, then flipping pages as hard as I can.
It makes me wonder if the fantasy/escapism aspect is a reason why the Japanese are more involved with video games then other countries. I say this, not to sound racist, but I'm generally interested on a cultural level. Generally, as a culture, they're a very humble people, who put themselves are great physical discomfort to appease each other. They hold back much of how they feel for the sake of politeness. So, it's no surprise that some of their movies are so violent and sexually explicit, it's a release of all of the building tension. So, the countries proficiency with technology in general aside, is this synonymous with the escapism of video games? I haven't done much looking into it, but I would suspect that it is. I don't intend to create a label or channel the person preaching that video games are making our children violent when that same person hasn't ever played a game or done any study about them. I just want to do more of a general musing about escapism.
It's liberating to be able to "get away" for a while. To leave all of your thoughts, worries, and frustrations behind and just forget. I think that video games allow for this. I have no problem hitting a prostitute with my car while escaping from the police in GTA, but I'd never do that in real life. Legal problems aside, I find it morally wrong, so why would I do it for pretend? Because I know it's fake. I know I'm not actually killing someone. The experience doesn't even feel like I'm actually killing someone, I wouldn't want it to. I escape from my world and enter the world of GTA where the rules let me get away with something like that, because in the end, they're all just pixels. The problem obviously arises when someone can't tell the difference between them. It comes back to the age old problem of personal responsibility.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Metagaming
One of the small features that can be found in the Phoenix, Loyola's newspaper, is a little thing called "Mixed Tape." It's essentially four songs linked by a common theme and then each entry has a little joke written about it. Well, this week's upcoming theme features songs about music. I was writing it last night and needed a title, so I settled on calling it "Metamusic," based on my interest in "Metatheater." For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term "Metatheater," it describes the action or idea of a play within a play. For instance, the play performed in Hamlet would be considered "Metatheater," because it's both another play, but also comments on the structure of theater. So, last night, I thought I was being clever with calling my Mix Tape "Metamusic." Now moving on from that and thinking about how video games affect my life, I got to thinking about video games who, through the game, make the gamer aware that he is playing a video game. Kind of like how the play in Hamlet makes the viewer aware that he is watching yet another play. It breaks the fourth wall so to speak. So, just like invented (or like to think that I have) the term "Metamusic," I would like to talk about "Metagaming."
The first game that came to mind, was Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. It was an new game based off of the original Final Fantasy Tactics design, but made specifically for the Gameboy Advance. The reason it's important is because it was being developed at the same time that Final Fantasy XII was, and the same person directed both games. Now in the beginning of FFTA, you take the persona of a kid who literally gets sucked into the game he's playing (the idea was that the kid was playing FF12, but because FF12 was delayed and came out years later, this relationship between the two and the effect of being inside of the game was greatly lost). So, from then on, you interact with new characters and this creative fantasy world, but in the back of your mind, you're a real person, playing a "real" person, who's playing a game. It's like a game within a game.
It's interesting because when you think of most games, not video games, you're consciously aware that you're doing something else, you're engaging in an act of play. You set aside the duties of your real life and have a good time. Video games tend to evoke Colridge's "willing suspension of disbelief." They like novels and films, want the person playing them to get lost in the created world. Of course we know that what we're doing in a video game isn't real, but we set that aside in a way we don't, when say playing Monopoly. So it's that a game like FFTA tried to capture that complete game immersion, by setting up two fictional worlds. The "real" one and the "game" one. It blatantly tells the gamer that he is playing a video game, but then, moves away from that and tries to make the gamer buy into this new virtual world. It's playing off of the fantasy that I'm sure all gamers have had, of actually being inside his favorite video game. Especially, since the game the character is playing in FFTA is available in the real world.
Then take a game like Myst, where the player, you, is taken from your world and into the world of a book. The way that book is experienced, the interface, makes it yet another game. So that was a much earlier attempt of what FFTA was trying to accomplish. But then there are still puzzle games and sports games, where the gamer is playing just for the fun of the interface, not for the story element. Or mini games that can be found inside the larger game, aren't these just more examples of games within games?
Final Fantasy Tactics Advance acknowledges not only that video games are created works of entertainment, but also the desire to fully immerse yourself in that entertainment. It plays on the drive behind the Sims and Second Life, without the "real world" interface, it is aware of the desire for fantasy. It's interesting because we're starting to see games becoming commentary like Bully on Columbine. I think it's easier for one media to critique another, but I think it's more effective when one media critiques itself, as I see FFTA doing. This isn't a concerned parent of a philosopher commenting about gamers, it's a video game made by video game player for like minded individuals. I know that sounds generic because let's face it, most games are made by other video game players, but the difference is that FFTA is tearing down that wall between reality and fiction. It's one step closer to suspending that disbelief. You're still starting out as someone other than yourself, but at least it's in the real world.
So what does that say about video games in general? I think FFTA points out their entertainment value as more than just interacting with the puzzles and conquering levels. I think it exposes the enjoyment gamers have with just the idea of video games and their love of the method.
The first game that came to mind, was Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. It was an new game based off of the original Final Fantasy Tactics design, but made specifically for the Gameboy Advance. The reason it's important is because it was being developed at the same time that Final Fantasy XII was, and the same person directed both games. Now in the beginning of FFTA, you take the persona of a kid who literally gets sucked into the game he's playing (the idea was that the kid was playing FF12, but because FF12 was delayed and came out years later, this relationship between the two and the effect of being inside of the game was greatly lost). So, from then on, you interact with new characters and this creative fantasy world, but in the back of your mind, you're a real person, playing a "real" person, who's playing a game. It's like a game within a game.
It's interesting because when you think of most games, not video games, you're consciously aware that you're doing something else, you're engaging in an act of play. You set aside the duties of your real life and have a good time. Video games tend to evoke Colridge's "willing suspension of disbelief." They like novels and films, want the person playing them to get lost in the created world. Of course we know that what we're doing in a video game isn't real, but we set that aside in a way we don't, when say playing Monopoly. So it's that a game like FFTA tried to capture that complete game immersion, by setting up two fictional worlds. The "real" one and the "game" one. It blatantly tells the gamer that he is playing a video game, but then, moves away from that and tries to make the gamer buy into this new virtual world. It's playing off of the fantasy that I'm sure all gamers have had, of actually being inside his favorite video game. Especially, since the game the character is playing in FFTA is available in the real world.
Then take a game like Myst, where the player, you, is taken from your world and into the world of a book. The way that book is experienced, the interface, makes it yet another game. So that was a much earlier attempt of what FFTA was trying to accomplish. But then there are still puzzle games and sports games, where the gamer is playing just for the fun of the interface, not for the story element. Or mini games that can be found inside the larger game, aren't these just more examples of games within games?
Final Fantasy Tactics Advance acknowledges not only that video games are created works of entertainment, but also the desire to fully immerse yourself in that entertainment. It plays on the drive behind the Sims and Second Life, without the "real world" interface, it is aware of the desire for fantasy. It's interesting because we're starting to see games becoming commentary like Bully on Columbine. I think it's easier for one media to critique another, but I think it's more effective when one media critiques itself, as I see FFTA doing. This isn't a concerned parent of a philosopher commenting about gamers, it's a video game made by video game player for like minded individuals. I know that sounds generic because let's face it, most games are made by other video game players, but the difference is that FFTA is tearing down that wall between reality and fiction. It's one step closer to suspending that disbelief. You're still starting out as someone other than yourself, but at least it's in the real world.
So what does that say about video games in general? I think FFTA points out their entertainment value as more than just interacting with the puzzles and conquering levels. I think it exposes the enjoyment gamers have with just the idea of video games and their love of the method.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Video Game Legislation
I brought up the discussion about restrictive legislation in class because I had come across it in my research for my "Resistance: Fall of Man" presentation. Although it pained me a little bit, because I was saving it for a blog entry, but I digress because it fit in nicely with the presentation. So here I want to cover it in a little bit more detail though.
Essentially, in originally I read states, but now I've found global laws, that limit the amount of video games one can play and the type of video games. The gaming industry has its own rating system from "E" for everyone to "M" for mature. The people who make the games are the ones who rate them. The problem with the legislation, is that others in congress are deciding that games need to be limited based on hearsay and their own beliefs. They aren't actually playing these games and very few studies have been done to test the legitimacy of the claims made to bring about stronger restrictions.
The government is taking the responsibilities out of the hands of the parents. They are trying to dictate what one does, but ultimately, for gaming, it should up to the parents to decide when to allow their child to play a game. Singling out video games is unfair. In an interview with CEO of Insomniac games, he said
"Despite the fact that the content we create is as artistically relevant and varied as film and television, we're not being afforded the same constitutional protection. Under much of the legislation that has passed or is being considered, games are treated similarly to controlled substances like alcohol, drugs and tobacco. As a content creator, I believe that's inappropriate."(http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=10207)
Most of the people behind the legislation are making assumptions and trying to control how people act. Here are some of the examples I found:
Australia: Games are screened by the Office of Film and Classification, which rates other media. They have no 18+ or "mature" rating, so if a game goes beyond their 15+ limit, it's banned. Sometimes games can be re instituted if they're modified by the company that created them to fit the 15+ standards.
China: Online gaming is huge there and it plans on instituting a feature that must be coded into all games that if someone plays the game for more then 3 hours, their stats and abilities are decreased. If they play for more than 5 hours, their character is greatly decreased. These abilities don't go up unless the gamer doesn't play for at least 5 hours. This is to deter excessive game play. There is also talk that after a player signs out of the game, he won't even be able to log back in for an extended period of time, because the game will remember his IP address and won't allow him access.
Japan: Focuses on excessive violence and pornography. Sometimes games are banned and other times, they're edited to fit their criteria. Often, their games are never exported to other countries.
U.S.: There have been many attempts to ban different games over the year. Usually the bills have a specific game in mind, but most of the time, these bills are denied or struck down and seen as unconstitutional, but it doesn't stop anyone from trying again.
(Most of these facts were taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversy - I know it's not the best source, but I needed an overview)
The argument against video games has become a kin to the old "pornography" label. Where they "know it when they see it." Sometimes a game be seem obviously offensive. There was a game created in 1986 in Japan, called "177," where gamers take the role of a rapist. The name of the game actually comes from a law criminalizing rape. It was banned, but then later rereleased with more conservative gameplay and scenes. It wasn't even the first time rape was the topic of the game. Now this is obviously offensive to most people, but should the game have been censored? Movies have rape in them, even characters who are rapists, but they're still released. So why is it different with a video game? Is it because you're fingers are orchestrating the actions? Is it really THAT much different from merely watching someone do it on screen? The creation of the game is tasteless, yes, but not illegal.
It's a shame that video games are being criticized the way that they are, but I don't think it's the games' fault. Setting aside the potential outcome that the game itself is instrumental in the gamer's mentality, the games themelves are just a product of our culture. These are things we are interested in. The sales of "standard" toys like action figures and dolls have declined, because they're being replaced by video games. Our society is moving into a technological age, so claiming that game are "corrupting the country's morality" is ridiculous. Maybe they're helping, but they're not the ones responsible. Sex and violence is all around us: The news, movies, music, it's almost inescapable. Instead of looking back at how things were, we need to see how things are and deal with them that way with the future in mind.
Essentially, in originally I read states, but now I've found global laws, that limit the amount of video games one can play and the type of video games. The gaming industry has its own rating system from "E" for everyone to "M" for mature. The people who make the games are the ones who rate them. The problem with the legislation, is that others in congress are deciding that games need to be limited based on hearsay and their own beliefs. They aren't actually playing these games and very few studies have been done to test the legitimacy of the claims made to bring about stronger restrictions.
The government is taking the responsibilities out of the hands of the parents. They are trying to dictate what one does, but ultimately, for gaming, it should up to the parents to decide when to allow their child to play a game. Singling out video games is unfair. In an interview with CEO of Insomniac games, he said
"Despite the fact that the content we create is as artistically relevant and varied as film and television, we're not being afforded the same constitutional protection. Under much of the legislation that has passed or is being considered, games are treated similarly to controlled substances like alcohol, drugs and tobacco. As a content creator, I believe that's inappropriate."(http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=10207)
Most of the people behind the legislation are making assumptions and trying to control how people act. Here are some of the examples I found:
Australia: Games are screened by the Office of Film and Classification, which rates other media. They have no 18+ or "mature" rating, so if a game goes beyond their 15+ limit, it's banned. Sometimes games can be re instituted if they're modified by the company that created them to fit the 15+ standards.
China: Online gaming is huge there and it plans on instituting a feature that must be coded into all games that if someone plays the game for more then 3 hours, their stats and abilities are decreased. If they play for more than 5 hours, their character is greatly decreased. These abilities don't go up unless the gamer doesn't play for at least 5 hours. This is to deter excessive game play. There is also talk that after a player signs out of the game, he won't even be able to log back in for an extended period of time, because the game will remember his IP address and won't allow him access.
Japan: Focuses on excessive violence and pornography. Sometimes games are banned and other times, they're edited to fit their criteria. Often, their games are never exported to other countries.
U.S.: There have been many attempts to ban different games over the year. Usually the bills have a specific game in mind, but most of the time, these bills are denied or struck down and seen as unconstitutional, but it doesn't stop anyone from trying again.
(Most of these facts were taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversy - I know it's not the best source, but I needed an overview)
The argument against video games has become a kin to the old "pornography" label. Where they "know it when they see it." Sometimes a game be seem obviously offensive. There was a game created in 1986 in Japan, called "177," where gamers take the role of a rapist. The name of the game actually comes from a law criminalizing rape. It was banned, but then later rereleased with more conservative gameplay and scenes. It wasn't even the first time rape was the topic of the game. Now this is obviously offensive to most people, but should the game have been censored? Movies have rape in them, even characters who are rapists, but they're still released. So why is it different with a video game? Is it because you're fingers are orchestrating the actions? Is it really THAT much different from merely watching someone do it on screen? The creation of the game is tasteless, yes, but not illegal.
It's a shame that video games are being criticized the way that they are, but I don't think it's the games' fault. Setting aside the potential outcome that the game itself is instrumental in the gamer's mentality, the games themelves are just a product of our culture. These are things we are interested in. The sales of "standard" toys like action figures and dolls have declined, because they're being replaced by video games. Our society is moving into a technological age, so claiming that game are "corrupting the country's morality" is ridiculous. Maybe they're helping, but they're not the ones responsible. Sex and violence is all around us: The news, movies, music, it's almost inescapable. Instead of looking back at how things were, we need to see how things are and deal with them that way with the future in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)