Author: JohnNieradka

Upon starting this reading one thing that becomes immediately apparent is the informal tone.  It is to be expected due to the passage retelling an interview in a bar settings, but it is a bit jarring coming off of two books where nary a swear was uttered.  Another thing I miss from the previous books are the numerous footnotes, as some of the works and authors referenced have flown over my head so to speak.  Granted, this could speak more so for laziness on my part for not bothering to do my own research.  Digressing aside, one topic brought up that I found interesting was the point on page 49 and 50 regarding how games must be constructed alongside taking into account more elements than most other forms of media, such elements include lighting, sound, and movement complimenting the gameplay.  While most are quick to dismiss video games as mindless entertainment as a whole, in actuality all of these elements are needed to be accounted for, which shows high production values.

Another thing that was brought up earlier in page 24 was the idea that women portrayed in games, or rather media in general, are not versatile, with physical appearance being a large aspect in place of personality and that ugly characteristics on female characters break them in the eyes of the viewers.  I have observed this to be unfortunately commonplace in games, with female characters, no matter how deep, shallow, complex, simple, well or poorly thought out personality and actions, tend to be all attractive in spite of the surrounding circumstances.  While there are certainly notable exceptions, like the non-titular lead from Mad Max Fury Road, these exceptions are few and far between, which is rather unfortunate.

Regarding the talks of the online multi massively online games and worlds, one of the reasons I am hesitant in joining such games is the possibility of it not meshing well with real life activities and responsibilities.  Specifically, the game Dungeons and Dragons sounds like a fun time to be had purely from listening to my friends’ experiences with the game, but I feel as if I would become addicted to such games and other MMO’s.  However, the frustration with regard to losing a game to faltering online connections or cancellations does not simply affect games in this genre.  Indeed, any game with any amount of online connectivity will suffer should the plug be pulled.  One such example for me is the mobile game Sonic Runners.  As a major Sonic fan, I loved the sound of the game and eagerly awaited its release in the USA after learning of its soft-release in Canada of all places.  Not without its problems, this game sold relatively poorly, leading it to be ceased roughly a year after its worldwide release.  Despite the mixed reception and controversial updates, I really still enjoyed this game and was upset to find it discontinued one day.  This goes to show that gamers, even of the non-MMO variety, can still empathize when this misfortune befalls them.

In reading on the section of this chapter relating to games being designed to cause literal, physical pain, I am reminded of one such device that I believe was banned several years ago from its Kickstarter Campaign (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/24/lose-real-blood-video-game-blood-sport_n_6211376.html).  Named “Bloodsport”, this controller peripheral actually drew blood from the player whenever damage was taken is, say, a shooting game.  While the campaign supposedly came with some danger-averting precautions, the idea in and of itself is horrifying.  While I am all in for games experimenting with physical activity, pain or damage inducing ones such as these feel like some sort of karmic trap that would not be out of place in the Saw movie franchise, something I do not think should exist.   That is to say, video games that have functions to intentionally cause harm, not due to unintentional equipment failure or an opponent’s poor sportsmanship, are ones that I have issues with.

Regarding cooperation based games, particularly online ones or tournament based ones, I have never really been a fan of inserting myself into those competitions, due to my overactive empathy.  For example, in the game “Yamove” referenced on page 95, assuming for one moment that I can even dance to begin with, I would be greatly stressed out for the whole ordeal, as any time a negative score or blunder is made, I would be extra hard on myself for it, even if I know its not necessarily my fault.  For this reason, I prefer to stick to solo games, like most platformers, or party games that rarely provide cooperation, like some forms of Smash Bros.  Of course, many times when I’m in larger cooperative games, like say the New Super Mario Bros. games, I tend to enjoy the schadenfreude of screwing over my teammates, so most of my friends are reluctant to play with me as well.

In reading this new book, the beginning has already caught my attention.  With regard to the concept of flow, the graphs represented on page 6 as Figure 1.1 are ingeniously made.  During conversations I’ve had with others about video games, upon asking them only a few simple questions, such as, “What is your favorite game?”, it would become evident on which side of the Hardcore/Casual Divide they would gravitate to.  However, I also feel that individuals do not solely fit into one classification.  For example, I fall on the hardcore side when it comes to platformers, enjoying the challenge each one brings, yet I consider myself more a casual fighting game player, not wanting to be restricted by comparatively strict tournament legislature.

I feel that even after looking through only two chapters of this book, it is more concentrated than the previous book.  While video games did pop up in Play Matters, the topics covered were far more broad in scope, defining “play” and “games” in general.  In this book, it’s scope is video games, and it analyzes topics that fall under this, including how the player views their avatar in different lenses, npc interactions and empathy going towards them, and general role-play.  I am looking forward to what other topics Isbister will bring.

I completed Windowframe without skipping levels…only for it to end exactly as described in the presentation today.  Hope this helps.

 

From chapter 7, I have some thought’s regarding the author’s opinions on game design.  In this section, he says that the concept of game designers is an outdated concept.  When he says this, I believe he is stressing that the most fun with a game in play is when the player makes his or her own rules when playing the game and that the player should have more of an impact in the game itself. An example that comes to mind to this end are with regard to games that are not necessarily designed well yet is still well liked is the skateboarding simulator, “Skate 3”.  For those who do not know, Skate 3 is a game that is laughably unpolished to the point that merely jumping on one’s skateboard can cause one to launch into the sky whilst spasming uncontrollably (https://youtu.be/DD3WKulo2zw?t=52s).  Under most video game reviewing conventions, this would be considered an awful game, yet many still play with the game.  Why is that?  Through the various glitches of the game, the players utilize a playful attitude while going into this game, looking for the most absurd glitches they can manage to pull off.  This game is clearly broken, but players still enjoy it by ignoring the conventional rules presented by the game and making their own rules, their own fun through this game.

Even still, I do not completely agree with the argument the author presents, that “game design is dead” (page 91).  I feel that game design is still somewhat of a beautiful thing, where the creator’s mind set can be viewed in the game design, that their vision can be seen by the players as they play.  By looking at a specific developer’s games over time, you get to learn their thought process on what sort of play they would like to impart onto the world.  It matters not if one agrees with the developer’s intentions, learning to empathize with and understand where a game developer stands in their style of game design can be considered to simply be human.  In the face of play, we are all our own game designers, and I do not feel it is good to completely ignore the intentions of another’s design.

In the fourth chapter of Play Matters, the author makes a clear distinction between play areas and game areas.  The latter area is more of a sub category of the former; both areas are seen in a different light due to play, but game areas are geared to a make a specified game available.  As such, I feel that play spaces can even appropriate game areas.  In video games, play spaces can be made of the traditional game spaces by making up one’s own rules away from or even opposite of the original game’s intention.  One example that comes to mind is the phenomenon of the Hyrule Jump in various games in the Super Smash Bros series.  Traditionally, the game is a fighting game used to knock opposing forces off of the various stages.  One stage, Temple Hyrule, is famous for its enormous size.  Due to this, some have made a mini game of this layout, testing the acrobatic abilities of characters around this layout.  Playing under this mentality normally would normally be considered under poor judgement, but one can ignore the rules in any given game area and turn it into its own unique play area, so long as creativity is present to guide the new form of play.

Skipping ahead one chapter, I was at first confused by the concept of politics in play.  Currently, my understanding of the political aspect of play is that since play appropriates environments, playfulness may have full life consequences in decidedly non-playful situations.  The first parallel that comes to mind is with regard to the invention of the potato chip.  The chef in question created it as a means of revenge against customers complaining about the thickness of the french fries he cooked by slicing them wafer thin, overly frying them, and pouring excessive amounts of salt.  While the cooking of this meal was vengeful in intentions, a form of the darker side of play, the creativity that came out of this playful act created a new snack that was successful around the United States, becoming a major snack food in the economy (http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/03/14/surprising-history-potato-chips/).

As I have been reading this book, a running theme that I had noticed being reiterated by the author was that lack of confidence in finding a concrete definition for terms such as “play” and “toys”.  Describing their attempts to define the terms as “foolish[ly]” (page 6), the negative tone here suggests some sort of humility, perhaps given forth for the purpose of not sounding overly pretentious as some philosophers are stereotypically seen to come across as.  Also in the first chapter is the phrase, “Desert Bus accompanies me in academic meetings,” relating to the context of how play is intertwined in his daily life (page 6).  Unless I am mistaken, the Desert Bus he is referring to is a satirical game made by Comedians Penn & Teller consisting of nothing but driving 8 hours in real time per point in the game.  Given the nature of said game, this was most likely put in as a joke relating to the presumable tedium of said academic meetings.

In the second chapter on playfulness, one line in particular stuck out to me, “A television wants to be more than a fireplace substitute: it aspires to become the grandmother that tells the bedside stories you want her to tell you whenever you want” (page 19-20).  Relating the television to a family member reminds me of “The Veldt” by Ray Bradbury, in which a pair of young children rather coldly replace their own parents with technology.  While the above phrase in “Play Matters” is most likely innocent, the idea that Bradbury’s story can be relatable to today’s society scares me.  Personally, it also fills me with guilt and makes me question whether I have replaced my grandparents (who have raised me) with such technologies; this is probably my tendency to magnify my self-doubt rearing its ugly head however.  Digressing aside, this may relate to how play is said to have its own positive and negative sides, in that one can focus on play to the point that familial bonds and work are pushed aside.  Play, much like most other things and activities in life, must have a balance in how much it is invoked.