Author: KingBurgerKing

There was a line in this week’s reading that really stuck out at me. “I think games are much more about theater than they are about film; the possibility space is much more explicit in both, they work live, they have an audience participating, there’s a performative aspect.” When I read this, I found it both striking but also instantly clear and correct.

Video games are often compared to film. As compared to mediums such as literature and music, they are much newer forms of entertainment and art. In their beginning, they were seen as faddish distractions. They both took elements from previous forms of media to create a new art form. As well, there is often work being done to merge these two mediums, to make games “more cinematic”. Obviously, cut scenes come to mind, but also the work of game makers such as Hideo Kojima, with his games often being compared to works of cinema.

But this is such a surface level interpretation of what is really going on when it comes to the dynamic of what makes video games, well, video games. I too was guilty of this kind of thinking in my youth, that games are like “movies you can play”. But there’s so much more to it than that.

Comparing games to theater as an alternative is, in my view, a clear, and well-thought out comparison. The performative nature of the two mediums ties them together strongly. The telling of a story through actions performed in a malleable environment, the “live-ness” of it all. But yet, I feel like nobody ever talks about how “theater-like” a game is, but certainly we hear that certain games are “movielike” all the time.

Of course, games go beyond what theater can provide. Indeed, games do have some elements of cinema, like control, pre-determination of events, special effects, etc. I think a really great video game combines the beauty and craft of what makes film great, the ability to create experiences that simply can’t be done on a physical stage, with the performance and thrill of live theater. This is another facet of what makes games important in their own right.

I sort of wonder why we do not see this theater comparison more often, or perhaps i’m just not looking hard enough. I wonder, if more often games were compared to theater, a very long and historically accepted art form, would games be more accepted as their own important and unique art-form. Nonetheless, I think it is time to stop talking about the cinematic quality of games, on more on the carnivalesque, theatrical quality of them.

In the final chapter of Isbister’s book, she talks about the ways in which gaming and in particular online spaces of play can create unique, dynamic, and fun social bonding experiences. This pushes back a bit against what I might say is “conventional wisdom”, and I am glad it does and in agreement with her.

Chapter 3 talked a decent bit about local multiplayer. The infectious nature of being in the same room with someone, playing and competing (or co-operating…or co-opting…), feeling shared emotions and experiences, is precious and wonderful, and in many ways stronger with games than with other mediums. Local multiplayer is fantastic. However, I feel that there has been a push to say that local multiplayer is the supreme form of creating social bonds through games, that is to say online multiplayer is only a substitute for the ‘real thing’, or playing games together in the same physical space. I am guilty of this mentality, in fact. I think Isbister, in talking about the myriad of ways games can create a special online bond, which can even lead to real meetings and connections in the ‘meatspace’, kills this notion once and for all.

I can personally very much relate to the idea that online play can enhance our real-life bond strongly, in ways that playing together in the same room can’t always accomplish.

Me and my roommate like to play this stupid hockey game ‘Hockey Stars’ on mobile. At our peak, we were playing even though we were in the same room at night. This game lets us have fun through shared gameplay experience even when we are not around each other. Even though we are roommates, there is a finite amount if time when we are around. By filling up the spaces between when we see each other, I’d say this dumb little game has added an extra component to our friendship. Plus, it enhances the conversation when we do meet back up. “Aw man, I thought I had you cornered earlier today!” “That shot was stupid af, I can’t believe it went in!!!”, etc are some of the conversations we now have together, because of the proceedings of this game during the day, that wouldn’t have occurred otherwise.

In Chapter 3 of How Games Move Us, Isbister talks a lot about communal emotions, and the way we feel when we are merely in the presence of others who are playing games and showing emotions while doing so. I think there is no better proof of the way emotions of competition and excitement can be transmitted (even infectious) than eSports.

Esports exists because of this phenomenon. People go to huge, loud arenas, and feel attached and excited in the heat of competition, even though they are not actually playing. Much work is given to facilitate an environment in which the excitement of the players can transmit to the spectators. However, even in smaller competitive environments can these emotions be felt. I’ve certainly been to smaller, local tournaments or even just informal tournaments with friends where I don’t play a single game but the feel the excitement and joy of playing.

Another phenomenon that exists because of this transfer of emotions are Let’s Play videos, or LPs. Initially, I found the concept of LP videos to be strange and unappealing. Why would I watch someone else play through and experience a game, when I can just play it myself? And although I am not a huge watcher of such videos, I definitely now see the entertainment and fun in watching them. You feel the emotions of the player, and just be being in the same space of play as the LPer, you feel like you are at play as well. Certainly for a ravenous gamer, with a never-ending list of games they want to experience, the appeal of being able to get the experience of a game vicariously and easily has a strong appeal.

In the first chapter of Isbister’s How Games Move Us, she talks a lot about the ways in which player characters, their design, and they way they interact, allow us to ‘self-insert’ and feel personal responsibility for actions in the game world. I think this is an interesting concept and one we’ve talked about in class. The kind of agency that is given by a player character who relates to you in some way is what makes gaming creatively separate as a medium from other art forms. Creating a player character whom you can relate to can come in a few different forms. The first of course being the heavily customization character editor. Obviously, a character who looks like you (or how you want to look) can improve the feeling of personal inclusion in a game. After all, why would AAA games create huge character customization features if it did not improve the experience of the game? But it is not just about characters who look like you. We discussed the faceless, blocky characters in That Dragon, Cancer-I felt that it was a very deliberate decision to allow for self-insertion to be easier, so you can relate and feel personally involved in the story and life of Joel. If you had a blocky, undefined character in a movie, it might just come across as weird.

In chapter 2, she talks about the meaningful, even if “virtual”, social interactions experienced when people play games with/against each other. I can relate to this and I think many of us in the class can. Multiplayer gaming (especially local for me) is at the heart and soul of what’s great about gaming for me. Playing games, immersing yourself in them, self-insertion and feeling what the characters feel, is great, but doing this in tandem with real-life deep bonding and friendship, is what makes games unique and special to me. Many incredibly popular games thrive on this fact and this fact alone. Nobody plays Smash as a single player game. Melee is nearly 15 years old. But it retains popularity to this day because it lets us experience personally some of our favorite characters, and bond over shared social play experiences together with them.

 

Side note: 15.”RanDumbVidz, Sim’s 3 TORTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, YouTube video, 1:52, July 6, 2009″ has to be the best citation I have seen in academia yet.

In this week’s reading, Sicart talked a lot about design. Not just ‘game design’, which he thinks is not a broad enough term, but of the field of design in general. ‘Game design’ and the greater architects of play do many of the same things that, say, product designers do.

One thing designers have to keep in mind is the concept of “affordances”. Affordance is basically the idea that certain shapes in design imply certain actions, or “afford” them. A door handle “affords” opening a door. Handles on a teapot afford pouring. The top lid of the Super Nintendo Entertainment System is curved as to afford you putting a game in (and to prevent you from putting on drinks that will spill and break it). Similarly, games have affordances. A platform affords you jumping onto it. Coins in the game world afford collecting them. In this way, game design is much like product design, although Sicart thinks that it goes much beyond this.

I really like the way Sicart talks about how “programming a computer is making it play”. This reinforces the idea that play is a method of personal expression. I am thoroughly convinced that a well-written computer program can be art, like poetry (not necessarily what it does, like the game it makes being art, but the written code itself). If the debate over whether “games are art” is thorny, then this one is a thornbush. Nonetheless, I think it’s very important to emphasize the personal nature of programming, of creating things on the computer. One of the reasons I am very doubtful of people who talk about ‘the singularity’, and ‘sentient AI’, that some futurists talk about, is that the machine is nothing without the human behind it. It only knows to do what we have told it to, and much as things seem to have changed, in reality this paradigm hasn’t changed over the years. I think people forget this because they do not understand computers. It seems like a black box, something magical almost. But to those of us who even have basic knowledge of programming, who know how to harness the machine to make it do what we tell it to, we can understand better how computing is an extension of how we play.

(This post has been edited).

 

Sicart talks about 3 major topics in this week’s reading: playgrounds, beauty, and politics.

I am fascinated by the fact that the history of playgrounds seemingly reflects the history of an increasing ‘helicopter parent’ culture. As more and more playgrounds are being built, adult supervision became more and more a part of playground culture, and thus became a component incorporated into the design. This manifested in playgrounds becoming more sterile, or as was mentioned, being “designed by committee”, for safety and approval by increasingly concerned parents. I wonder if in a strange way this means that modern parenting is in some ways “designed by committee”. It seems more and more that parents try and create a sterile, monitored environment or their children to grow up. The child has little freedom to do what he/she wants on his own. One of the key features I think of something that’s “designed by committee” is that it feels prescribed and sterile. A childhood marked by surveillance and guidance rather than freedom and exploration feels like it could fall under this definition.

In terms of beauty, Sicart basically makes the point that the beauty of play comes from the appropriation of the space around it. I agree with his point, and I think this means we should put value in all forms of play. People seem to have a fondness or bias towards sports as being a high artistic form of “play”. After all, the game of soccer is literally referred to by fans as “the beautiful game”. And while I do think soccer is a beautiful game, I think all games are beautiful too! (And that also means that in my opinion it is very narcissistic refer to this sport in this way.) I think perhaps the growing acceptance of eSports as a sport might go some way to legitimize the notion that beautiful games need not be a certain few popular sports.

And as for politics, I have found myself in certain political contexts wherein it could be argued we were appropriating a space with a sense of playfulness (though I wouldn’t say it was a full on game). A few times, I have been in marches in New York City. Many thousands of us gather, and we march down one of the wide Manhattan avenues, cheering, screaming, chanting, and singing songs of our movement. It is an incredible time. We have fun, we meet like-minded people, we express ourselves to the world, we take over the streets with our message. Onlookers and tourists often show support. My point is, in the context of supporting a political movement, we sang, cheered, and brought our own sense of playfulness to the streets, thus appropriating that space with a hint of playfulness. I recommend everyone get involved in a march for a cause they care about sometime; it can be a life changing experience.

Before I begin, just saying that this account, kingburgerking, is Henry Paul.

One thing that stuck out to me in this piece was a brief section on pushing back against commercialized notions of play, as an “activity for consumption” instead of one of creation. It then brings up the worlds of music, art, politics, literature, etc as counter examples; these are ways to express oneself, and play should be viewed as one as well. I think this is a fascinating notion, because I think we can see this sort of commercial creep in all of these fields. Music, which is of course a great way to self-express, has been commercialized into a whole industry with a whole class of people that only consume, never create, music. The same can be said about art, and literature, and most creative endeavors. I think this relates to his class very much because the notion of the “Triple A” game is the video game equivalent of this sort of commercial push: to reduce the concept of play from one in which we create and self-express to one where we only consume. When people complain about music being commercialized, or literature being commercialized, I feel like people usually leave out the concept of play, and specifically video games. But, as the book really explains of course, play matters. It is incredibly important to reclaim the notion of “play”, and I think the exploration we will be doing in this class will help a lot to do so.