Time Fcuk... Not simply a humorous title.

Time Fcuk is a super hard puzzle game in which the lead character comes into contact with a entity that looks just like him and tells him that he has to get in a box. While it may seem like the character has choice he in fact does not and is forced into the box and into a puzzled world with this entity being the only voice for the rest of the game. The game is entirely two dimensional where there is little to no discernible story-line. Instead of a story-line and progressive plot points, the game is a series of puzzles games that force the main character to find he way out of various rooms and the character's only company is the prior entity who provides the only dialogue throughout the game. These dialogue points however do not seem to have any actual purpose other then to be humorous commentary, that plays off a variety of tropes, on what the player or entity is doing or experiencing. 

The fact that the game is two dimensional, that there is little to no exploration of the characters or story-line, and that tropes are used throughout, one can easily place this game under the title of being Superflat but is it really? I would say that it is a Superflat game as it there is no levels of dimension within the game in particular with the main character. The audience/game player has no idea why this character is there when the other entity appears, the player has no idea why this entity is there and why it is so important to get into the box, and there seems to be no reason for the main character to escape all the rooms within the game. However, the ending of the game is the sticky part for me as from what I understand Superflat doesn't have a divine meaning or purpose but at the end of this game seems to hint that there is a grander purpose behind the actions and mechanics of the game. 

The ending to me made this game ineligible to be called a true Superflat game... I would classify Time Fcuk as a Westernized version of a Superflat game. More and more of the Superflat  aesthetics are being used in Western games but beyond the aesthetic most games are not truly Superflat. I blame this on the need for Western gaming culture to have a purpose behind why a game is played. It seems as if gamers have an innate need to validate the time spent playing a game by explaining the overarching themes and the "message" behind the game and because of this Western attempts at Superflat will continue to fall short. 

We the People - We Participate

"Democratize Television: The Politics of Participation" Henry Jenkins

Key Points from text:

Current, a tv station founded by prior VP Gore in which the viewers would supply most of the content that would be aired on TV. Gore's belief was that a channel like this would "diversify civic discourse" allowing for many different views to be expressed and explored.

Many questions arose in regards to this new channel such as - what would be the focus of the station? would it be to further the democratic process or would the focus be on more capitalist foundation such as making money via shareholders, advertisers, etc.: "any truly democratic form of broadcasting would necessarily arise outside corporate media and would likely see corporate America as it's primary target for reform," (Jenkins, 250) not exactly what Gore was trying to promote by creating this channel. Another issue is the where the content will come from... if it comes strictly from viewers then the channel would just be "a glorified public access station."

BBC had decided to also place focus on the online content and how consumers relate to these forms of media. Where Current would focus on incorporating the content from the web into a broadcast media in which the consumers create their own content. The BBC's focus was on allowing more participation from avenues that were shaping digital culture.  Even though their approaches and ideologies maybe different, each was working with the idea of the convergence in media. "Convergence represents a paradigm shift  - a move from medium-specific content toward content that flows across multiple media channels" (Jenkins, 252) but while current, BBC, and others may say they are "democratizing television" they aren't really; the focus is on how to use these new forms of media in new ways to create more revenue.

No matter what the incentive it is clear that media industries have to embrace participation from their consumers via online media. The reason why TV needs to change is that it is losing it's consumer base of 18-34 year old because they choose more diverse avenues in which to get their content out to consumers. "With the aid of Internet, the loftiest dream for television has been realized: an odd brand of interactivity. Television began as a one-way street winding from producers to consumer, but that street is now becoming two-way." (Marshall Sella NY Times, 254).

This book shows different ways media (TV, Internet, smart phones, etc) have allowed for a convergence in participation to happen. But with any new concept there are reforms that need to be made in order for the concept to work fully. In this case, participation needs to be reformed in order to allow diversity which in today's consumer culture will lead to companies no longer being able to ignore consumer - which limits participation. Jenkins brings up 5 key fighting points to protect participatory action within media:
     1. Corporate copyright regime
     2. Censorship and moral panic over what is being created.
     3. Publicize best practices of online communities
     4 Expand access so more participation from fringe groups.
     5. Development of media literacy.

What will motivate consumer-based participation will be shared interests. In order to do this the marketplace must change and work with convergence media in order to put pressure on companies to hear our voices, allowing for consumers to participate in what is altered, kept, done away with, etc. In the media of TV this can be seen by the grassroots campaigns to keep cancelled TV shows like Arrested Development and Family Guy (which was put back on the air due to online pressure of consumers of FOX TV). Another example is how consumers no longer have to wait in order to purchase content like TV shows on DVD. Now consumers can go online download or watch instantly content or consumers can purchase instant media that would normally not be played on mainstream TV.

Media allows for more participation which supports our democratic urges (Jenkins, 257), therefore it is an important tool that can not be downplayed. Jenkins states 'Consumers will be more powerful within convergence culture - but only if they recognize and use that power as both consumers and citizens, as full participants in our culture" (257).

Entitlement to All!

The controversy surrounding Jennifer Hepler's interview allowed for some in the gaming industry to express, vilely and maliciously, a part of gaming world that has always been seen as a major downside - a sense of entitlement. When reading the responses and obscene laced responses it is clear that what Hepler said in a 2006 interview (yet this controversy didn't start till 2012) struck a nerve within the gamer community. Hepler made the ultimate mistake of admitting she doesn't like playing games as part of her job in gaming industry and caused further hoopla when she stated she would like an option to forward through game fighting as one can do now with dialogue. Now as a fellow gamer I can understand the issue taken by gamers because of Hepler stating she does not playing the playing of games because what consumer would like to know that someone writing for some of my favorite games doesn't play their own creations. It is disheartening but also understandable when her statement is taken with the context of the entire interview; Hepler was making a statement about how little time she has to play games with her being a new mother. While this is a valid excuse for anyone - certain games can be very time intensive - but where she lost ground was in her comment about the fast forward option of game combat. This is not because of the removal of content within a game, everyone has particular preferences when playing games, but due to the fact that in the interview she states that most women don't like the violent aspects of games and would prefer an option to skip over it and focus on the storyline aspect of the game. As a female gamer it was a bit insulting to be lump into a group simply because of my sex (I personally enjoy combat in game play) but I do understand what Hepler was stating when she made that comment; having the OPTION to move past certain aspects of games that may not be appealing to some gamers is not a bad idea.

While what Hepler states in her interview was not the smartest choice of word, the public response (6 years later) showed even poorer chooses made by gamers en masse. There was vile tweets, horrible pictures created, and obscene comments made all attacking Hepler personally and when Hepler and another from Bioware dared to counterattack the true real problem emerged: gamer entitlement. Once a retort was issued, personally attacking an attacker/gaming consumer, everything changed and these same attackers went on the defensive with the consumer entitlement ideology that "We are the consumer therefore we must always be respected no matter what we do!' This entitlement leads gamers to think that they can say what ever they want, no matter how disgusting, and expect no repercussion for their actions because they are the consumers. With the overall freedom of the Internet, the ability to be anonymous, and the fact that this is a highly capitalist society, consumers feel entitled to provide their opinion no matter if what they are saying is actually constructive or just a personal attack. In this case, this entitlement did nothing but provide a vibrant example to gaming naysayers of one of the major problems with the gaming industry. This problem is less likely to end because more and more people have taken to using the internet as a way to influence consumerism and with that kind of overreaching power the Internet provides, entitlement will just keep getting inflated.

Washington VS. Media

When Congress held their hearing May 4, 1999, it was for the sole purpose of filibustering to parents around the United States that were looking at every teenager as the harbinger for the demise of society. Congress felt there was a strong need for a congressional hearing on the Marketing of Violence to Children due to the horrific events that happened in Littleton, CO, or as we refer to it to today - The Columbine Shooting. Congress felt there was a direct correlation between the children see in the media and the violent acts they MIGHT commit. After listening to the opening statement and a few of the speakers brought in for this hearing there is a few conclusions I can come up with: Congressmen like to hear themselves speak ALOT, hearings are called with little care for proper research, and that the "adult" population fears what they can't understand.

Due to the length and content of the hearing I was unable to tolerate listening to every one of the speakers congress brought in to discuss this matter. I focused my time listening to the mostly Henry Jenkins, an author and teacher at MIT who concentrates on how media and people interact. He was called in last minute to discuss media and the marketing of violence specifically to children. His speech took away from the filibustering that was going on by the congressmen who felt compelled to speak on a subject they clearly were not fully informed on. Jenkins focused on the fact that media is not the problem and does not cause kids to be violent. Instead, Jenkins states that those who commit violence do not get it FROM media outlets but rather violence is within them already and media allows for their already violent tendencies to be visualized; media is allowing a connection with an idea or emotion already present within a person. Jenkins informs the audience that the real issue of children responding to life with gross extremes of violence has nothing to do with what they are listening to or watching or playing but rather within their own minds caused by real life experiences: "Banning black trenchcoats or abolishing violent video games doesn't get us anywhere. These are the symbols of youth alienation and rage -- not the causes," (Jenkins). Another key point Jenkins expounds upon is that holding hearings like this just incites parents and further alienates them from the children they are suppose to be protecting. Jenkins ends his speech with a plea to everyone "Journalist Jon Katz has described a backlash against popular culture in our high schools. Schools are shutting down student net access. Parents are cutting their children off from on-line friends. Students are being suspended for displaying cultural symbols or expressing controversial views. Katz chillingly documents the consequences of adult ignorance and fear of our children's culture. . . . I urge this committee to listen to youth voices about this controversy. . . Listen to our children. Don't fear them."

Current feelings about media and its effect on children in society is still debated, however, the focus does not seem to be on one particular aspect of media, but rather on how quickly media is changing with new technologies arising daily and how society is having a hard time keep up with all these new ways media invades societies everyday life. One of the biggest issues that I researched was the rise of blaming the media of gaming for the rise in childhood obesity, which is now considered an epidemic in America. Like the violence being discussed prior, gaming has become a scapegoat for an issue that really has nothing to do with the media of gaming. It is not gaming's fault that parents rather plop their kids in front of TV then participate in their lives. It is not gaming's fault that parents allow their children to eat crap rather then take the time out to cook their kids a healthy meal. It is not gaming's fault that children rather closet themselves inside their house, playing video games, instead of going out to playing with other kids that could demean or hurt them. Games, like Jenkins stated in his testimony, is a symbol not the cause.

I could not find any videos on Youtube.com but was able to locate the footage via C-SPAN... the link is http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/123015-1

LGBT and Gaming

After reading Kenji Yoshino piece called Covering: the Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights, watching the video on sexual diversity on PennyArcade.com, and pondering the questions set forth by these pieces I am at a loss to find a game that truly speaks to issues that arise in the LGBT community. In order to complete this post I had to actually search for games I may have heard of that MIGHT have some reference to the LGBT community but unfortunately after researching I came to the conclusion that there is a surprising lack of LGBT representation in games. One argument I read was that games are for fun not to expound on critical world issues or personal issues facing a certain demographic of the world. This is the laziest response I found and I was personally offended that someone would play down how important games can be to facilitating conversations, actions, and responses to LGBT issues that could be highlighted within the confines of game.

I thought long and hard as to why this segment of society has been left with no true representation not only in gaming but in many other aspects of society. Yoshino’s piece helped to bring into focus a crucial element that is a huge stumbling block for the LGBT, the act of “covering.” “Covering,” according to Yoshino “. . . is to tone down a disfavored identity to fit into the mainstream,” and it clear that “covering” has been a large part of the life of someone living within any part of society but especially in the LGBT community. It is this act of hiding a part of oneself, projecting instead an idealized identity based on societal constraints that protects game creators from being highly criticized for ignoring issues in the LGBT simply because it doesn’t fit into the mainstream idea of what a game character is. And even if a game does place a focus on a LGBT character it is mostly for a romancing option like in the Elder Scrolls: Oblivion game in which the RPG can enter into a same sex marriage or like in Dragon Age or Fable series which allow sexual relationships between like gendered characters. None of these romancing options actually progress the game character or provide an alternate storyline incorporating LGBT issues, themes, etc into the game.

PennyArcade.com does explore an LGBT game in the webisode called Extra Credit: Sexual Diversity in Games. This game I never heard of and since it is so highly LGBT centric I doubt I will ever come into contact with it in the mainstream gaming market. The game explored is Persona 4, in which the main character, Kanji, is a young male gay teenager who explores his place in society as such a person. The game explores societal constructs and also delves into actual issues that arise within the LGBT community. Unfortunately, this game went through a process of “covering” when distributed in the United States, as the creators felt that the outright LGBT context might alienate a large sections of society that play video games. Yet again society manages to suffocate anything considered outside the mainstream.

I would like to add a link here to a website article I found that brought up a lot of interesting points in regards to LGBT issues and gaming.

http://www.armchairarcade.com/aamain/content.php?article.27

Research - Post Modernism and Fallout 3

The first article I found is called "From Genre Mineur to Critical Aesthetic: Pastiche" by Ingeborg Hoesterey. In this article Hoesterey examines Pastiche as a literary motif and how also goes into the history and reason why pastiche is used. Hoesterey also  examines the ideology behind the Post-Modernist movement and defines the building blocks of it such as Pastiche.

The next article I found is called "Stories, Probes, and Games" by James Paul Gee. In this article Gee explores who video games can provide insight into the feels that arise from playing a game and the connection the player makes with the game through the game's narrative structure and narrative choices.  Gee also looks into how storytelling can be good and bad within a game.

The next article I found is "Understanding Video Games as Emotional Experiences" by Aki Jarvinen. I will use this article to explore emotional responses to aspects in video games. This is especially important for my argument as I feel that the emotional connections to the what the 1950's represent is what propels the aesthetics of Fallout 3.

Muy Macho!

Tough Guise is a documentary film that takes on how the media has perpetuated societal performances of what it means to be a man or manly. One of main focuses in the beginning of the film discusses violence and how it is presented in today's society. The focus is mainly on how violence committed by men are seen as acts of violence not done by a man to a person, place, or thing but as just violence in general but that if women commit violence then it is highlighted and needs to be discussed. This is mostly due to the fact that historically men are suppose to be violent and macho but women are suppose to heal, protect, and be submissive. This aspect is clearly seen in the realm of video games as explored in the movies on PennyArcade.com: Extra Credit. In these vignettes video games are looked at in terms of how they explore societal constructs, especially in regards to race, religion, and gender.

Taking the above issues a step further, PennyArcade.com: Extra Credit, discusses how video games, especially propaganda games, need to keep in mind that what is in the game is being integrated into the minds of the game players. The games that were focused on societal constructs that are being exploited for the creators own agenda, such as the neo-nazi game discussed or more shockingly the mainstream game called Call of Juarez: The Cartel. By using these games as examples, Penny Arcade, shows how "lazy design" leads to perpetuating racist, sexist, and other societal taboos but they also provide a resolution to these issues - pay attention to the content in the game and only use stereotypes and negative tropes as a way to educate and incite thought processes.

However, even this resolution is not foolproof as seen in the video about female roles in video games. Stereotypical tropes are abound in video games, such as the large muscled hero with hundred guns and testosterone oozing from every pixel or the nameless bad guys in turbans or do-rags. However, women seem to get the worse stereotyping in all of games, as they are seen as merely damsels in distress (Princess from Mario Bro.), big breasted, scantily clad heroines, or the evil harpy or witch there to destroy and wreck havoc. There are no strong women characters that truly examine what women have to go through in life, such as motherhood. Instead, women characters simply mimic male characters but with larger breasts, tinier clothes, pretty faces, and "sugar and spice and everything nice." I can not think of one female character in the games I have come across that truly represents a female character in  real terms - all female characters seem to have been born out of adolescence male mind without and real thought as to what constitutes a proper female character.

Pictures of Pretty Men

Gender plays a large role in advertising and as Susan Bordo points out this is due to how women and men are viewed. According to Bordo women have historically been made to be seen not heard; that women are suppose to be aware of their sexuality and be vain in when dealing with their looks. Through her examination of ads for men's wear Bordo examines how men have been made to believe that showing concern for their appearance is unmanly and effeminate. However, in this post-modern era this has changed allowing for acceptance of men caring how they appear to the outside world. This change does not mean that it is okay for men to be vain, to care more about their appearance then being manly and the products made for them in this vein all have manly names and manly purposes. This examination clearly shows that even though society has lightened up on men and their appearances it is not truly ready to allow men the same ability for vanity without it classifying them as homosexual or lesser men. 

In the case of video games, the role of a character is also defined by looks and actions. In the examination of Kratos in the video by Extra Credits it clear that his actions define him as a character. By going through the trilogy of game it is clear that Kratos' actions are founded on a literary tradition of Greek Tragedies and the first game held very true while the other two games lacked in this regard, choosing to focus more on mindless violence. Tying this into Bordo's piece, the character of Kratos is most assuredly a manly man, hell bent on violence at any cost. Due to this, the plot that Extra Credits lambastes seems fitting as Kratos can't not relent and be remorseful for his actions as that is not a manly act. The creators could have written in a redeemable plot line but then the character of Kratos would lose his manliness and the horror that he invokes with his violence. 

"Oiligarchy"

The game "Oiligarchy" was an interesting way to add real life complex issues into the perspective of a gaming platform. The entire purpose of "Oiligarchy" is to show in a game environment the complex issues involved between the oil industry and the world as a whole. After reading the "Postmortem" I was able to understand the purpose behind the game, the projected issues that the player could/would encounter, and the possible endings. There were so many complex issues that never would have occurred to me without the experience of the game play, such as the level of oil dependency or "oil addiction" that the world currently has and that this is a relatively new problem as it arose after World War II. Another key point that I got out of reading and playing was that I am a facilitator of this "oil addiction" problem as I am completely dependent on oil and all that it allows me to do. The game also brings in the aspect of off-shore drilling, the effect on the natives of this drilling, the tension it causes not only oversees but here at home especially among environmentalist and government. Another interesting aspect of the game was the ability to not only make money (the goal of the game) but to make it money and help move the world away from it's "oil addiction" to a more "green" way of living, mimicking the state of the world currently.

As for game play, it was easy to figure out but was complex in it's motives behind the choices made. With the knowledge I gleaned from reading "Postmortem" I started the game with the distinct purpose of trying to get a good ending. This proved to be an exercise of keeping a oil baron's mindset  of money, money, money but also keeping an open mind to the fact that I can still make tons of money without destroying the environment, creating global warming, being guided by foreign, governmental, or special interest group's influence. With the knowledge I gleaned from reading "Postmortem" I started the game with the distinct purpose of trying to get a good ending and luckily I was able to get an ending that didn't have catastrophic event - I was allowed to retire. I then played with the sole purpose of getting the money no matter the means - this was a bit easier of game play but it also was not without it's own issues, such as uprising against moving production overseas, the issues of holding on to oil interest overseas, and the moral issues of displacing indigenous people and harming the world in an almost irreversible way.

Next I played "The McDonald's Game" and noticed that they were very similar in regards to the fact that the games intent is to show the affects of solely keeping a capitalist mindset. Again, there are many ways to play the game that ranges from solely making money without a care for anyone else to playing with too much concern for the world which then leads to fiscal failure. I attempted to play the game as I did with "Oiligarchy" but after five playthroughs of the game the only outcome I received was firing. What both games showed me was that society may see these industries as evil and ruining the world but what isn't realized is all the components that go into running a company within a society that values capitalism above all else. The games also spotlight issues that arise out of businesses like this such as "oil addiction" and obesity. Summarily, the purpose of these games is to provide a snapshot of real life issues that society is dealing with on a daily basis. What the games actually do is provide the player with tangible experience of how complex these issues are and that there is not one simple answer to solving the problems being faced in today's world.

Games and Culture

In John P. Gee’s article “Video Games and Embodiment” he posits the interesting relationship between the game and the game player. He breaks down his analysis to show that a character is created with certain specifics in mind but that the character then embodied by the player who inserts within the game play his/her own emotions, thoughts, and actions. Gee also notes that this is not a one way effect as the games character also embodies the player; inserting into the player is the game character’s mindset, landscape, and other aesthetics of that the game creator placed into the game. Another key point in the article is that games are created in a way to mimic situations in the real world allowing the player to draw on past experiences or gain new knowledge as to what works within a given model situation or as Gee stated: “We can act in the model and test out what consequences follow before we act in the real world” (256).

The other article I read from the Games and Culture journal was “Comparative Video Game Criticism” by Ian Bogost. In this article he states that there are two modes of thought – the mythical which is the observation of the real world and the scientific which focuses on the invisible. Bogost states that games can be used as a mirror up to society and how we communicate. Games are a mythical way to investigate aspects usually found in the scientific world. Next he discusses the connection that has been made between literature and the industrial revolution, focusing on the relationship between man and the machine. This is a major part of the postmodernist movement that arose after World War II and found it’s voice during the upheaval in America caused by the Vietnam war which was the first time that technology enabled a bird’s eye view into the horrors of war. 

Point & Click Here: Gilbert and Schafer's Insights

Tim Schafer and Ron Gilbert have a rather in depth conversation about what they love about adventure games, how modern games/times have affected the adventure game platform of gaming, and how they would change adventure games to appeal to the modern gaming audience. The two most important aspects of adventure game play that arose out of their conversation was dialogue and puzzle play. These two aspects accelerate all the action within the game and make the game player feel like they are continuously interacting with the game itself, something both Schafer and Gilbert feel has been lost in modern games. After playing Schafer’s point & click game “Host Master and the Conquest of Humor” I whole-heartedly agree with the significance of the dialogue and puzzles. If not for the dialogue and the complexity of some of the puzzles I was fully engaged in the game. When I got stuck in the game it was the dialogue that enabled me to not get frustrated and reminded me that everything I can interact with is a tool in order to solve the puzzle.

This issue of getting stuck by a puzzle was another talking point discussed by Schafer and Gilbert. Each felt that it was an important aspect of how point & click or as they call it, adventure games, differ from modern games out today. In adventure games, if you got stuck you had to use your brain in order to figure it out, or take a step back and view the puzzle from another perspective but you were never just given the answered – you worked for your game progression. This quality can been seen again in Schafer’s game “Host Master...” when I got stuck on finding the last clue that would allow me to beat the game. After clicking around I was forced to walk away from the game (otherwise I would have thrown my netbook out the window) and once I got away from it I began to use my brain to figure out what I needed to do next. Unfortunately, I could not find the last clue and ended up using a gaming walkthrough for the game which showed the answer to the puzzle that I would never have figured out unless I did pixel searching with my mouse. Gilbert stated that this would be the only change he would make to point & click games – he likes the complexity of puzzles that force you look at the game from different angles and that also force you to take a step away in order to not get sucked into being frustrated by the game – but he would change the pixel hunting aspect of these games as it takes away from the puzzle itself.

My game play of “Host Master...” and the subsequent use of a walkthrough brings up another key point in Schafer’s and Gilbert’s discussion. They feel that with modern gaming not only have gamers and game creators moved away from engrossing dialogue that compliments the game play but that the access to walkthroughs and cheats have taken away from the game creators intentions and can actually take away the fun aspect of game playing – trial and error. With modern games the focus is more on making the game visually entertaining and making the game progression easy to follow. Modern times have allowed the control to shift from the game creators to the game player because a player doesn’t actually ever have to make an effort to figure out how to beat a game instead they just look it up online. I agree with both men that this aspect of modern game play has ruined the intentions of how the game creator wanted the game to be played which then negates the purpose of the game. Each of them bring up great points but after playing "Host Master..." then playing a modern game - modern games are still more fun, at least for me. 

The Rise of the Reader/Gamer: Is the Author Becoming Extinct?

Roland Barthes is a French literary theorist and in his text “The Death of an Author,” he questions authorship. He states that “literature is that neuter, that composite, that oblique into which every subject escapes, the trap where all identity is lost, beginning with the very identity of the body that writes” (2) and uses this idea to posit the rest of argument that the importance of the author has died and with it comes the rise of the reader. In Barthes piece he surmises that the importance of a text is no longer dependent on the author’s intent but rather the experience of the reader. It is the reader who interjects their own connotation to a text and uses their own experiences to connect with the work, therefore the author’s life, intent, or purpose means nothing within the confines of the text and it is the reader who breathes life into a text. The same can be said about the literature of gaming as games are literately nothing without the “reader” or gamer participation. However, this does not mean there is no authorship in games. For example, immersive games like Skyrim or Fallout or Final Fantasy, the game creator has created another world and within that world creates the laws, history, races, etc. in conjunction with game play itself. It is this authorship in games of these factors that contradicts and at the same time coincides with Barthes idea that the author is dead. The author is very much alive in the sense that it is he/she who envisions their game, conceptualize it, and then put it out there for human consumption. However, it is the “reader” or gamer who actually brings life into game. It is through the “reader’s” game play that the text created by the game creator becomes alive and action/reaction starts to take place in response to that text. As Barthes declares, “. . . [The reader] is only that someone who holds gathered into a single field all the paths of which the text is constituted” (6) clearly stating how significant the “reader” is to a text and without them a text is just a group of words on a page. In world of gaming this is also true because without a player to interpret, responds, react, etc. to the game, the game has little to no purpose, no matter the author’s intent. 

ERRR... "One Play" Games

The game-play style in the three games selected were interesting, mostly due to the fact that I have never played a “one play” game before. Another interesting factor was what the game was trying to say by using the “one play” motif. In “You Only Live Once,” the game play seems similar to that of a Super Mario type format with simple jumping and walking forward action but it differs in design due to the fact that if you die once your game is over. There is no way to circumvent the finality of the player’s death and if you attempt to start the game over you end up right where you left off – dead. In “One Chance,” the player finds out that a medicine they created is actually going to kill the world in six days. It is this knowledge of the impending end that drives the action of the player but ultimately the end comes and there is little the player can do to stop it. Again, as with the previous game, once you die the game is over and there is no way to circumvent this. In the final game “(Why is) Johnny in an Art Game?” the game player is similar to that of “One Chance” but is different because unlike in “One Chance” the player is not actually allowed any choices but to walk forward till the player dies. Each game allows limited action and ultimately the player really has no choices within the game play – it just seems that choices can be made. These games were fun to play but also very frustrating as I felt a compelling need to finish or at least have the ability to finish the game. I attempted to work around the game and opened each in a new web browser (first I used Chrome and then IE) and I was able to start a new game but yet again when I died there was no way to finish the game. After my second run through the games and each game still ending in the same way I realized that even if I wanted to work around the “one play” style that I would be hard pressed to find a way to do it and that to circumvent the “one play” style would actually ruin the intent of creator and the message the creator is trying to put out there by the creation of the game.

Because of the “one play” style of these games I was forced to take notice of the underlying theme in each game. In “You Only Live Once,” the game made me notice that I have this insane need to be ABLE to finish a game and the frustration I felt at not being able to finish. It gave me a feeling of impotence and made me think “why play a game that has no real goal?” but when I looked at it as a game that provides a message I was able to let go of the NEED to finish the game. In “One Chance,” I was able to see right away that the game was so much more than just a game to play for fun – there was a message behind it. In this game the purpose behind the “one play” aspect was to make the player realize that all actions have consequences and when the world is ending there is only a few choices left before the end; make a choice to attempt to stop the end of the world, or to hang out with friends, or to stay around your family. Each choice reveals something about the type of choices a person makes in life and the consequences of those choices. In “(Why is) Johnny in an Art Game,” the games sole purpose is (in part to make fun of “One Chance”) to show that if the end of the world is actually near that any choice you make means nothing – the end will come no matter what. Personally I do not like the “one play” games as I play games to escape the world and in these games a player plays with the sole intention of finding the hidden meaning that the “one play” style tries to flush out.  

Ebert VS Games

Megan W.
Joslyn R.
Jenn M.

Ebert point 1
Defining what is art. Ebert actually never provides his true definition of what he feels art actually is. Its seems that he is just saying he knows what art is but is not willing to place his own definition to the argument.

Stanton's article is the best counterpoint the above point made by Ebert.  Stanton highlights the issues with placing a finite definition on something as obscure and subjective as artistry. Stanton plays into Ebert's exclusionary tactic of placing games outside the realm of art when he states that art is subjective and every person's idea of art is as varied and vast as the people on this Earth.

Ebert point 2

Ebert hasn't seen anything that can be classified as art within the gaming community.

Brockway counters this in his article "Who Framed Roger Ebert," by clearly pointing out what Ebert has said repeatedly - Ebert hasn't actually played any games and is not very informed on the world of gaming. This means that Ebert is providing an opinion on something he has little to no knowledge of. Ebert is simply exerting what Brockway states is an exclusionary line between what is art and what people define as art. Brockway  succinctly states, "Art is a word that denotes exclusivity, but in the current day its meaning can only ever be inclusive. What is art? Art is what any single person considers to be art. There is no such thing as an objective definition, because all that anyone can ever truly know of something is their own experience. When the only possible judgements are subjective, a belief in the existence of a category of things that are 'art' is absurd" and clearly from Ebert's stance in his article he is being absurd stating that games can never be art.

Ebert point 3

Ebert states that he can agree with Santiago's opinion that art is a progression from something like cave art to  the work done in the Sistine Chapel but that in order for games to reach that level of progression it will take millenias and therefore will no be seen in our lifetime.

Again Brockway provides a convincing counter to this point made by Ebert. In his article "Why Ebert is Wrong: In Defense of Games as Art" Brockway does something that Ebert and Santiago does not do - he provides evidence of game that in his context, purpose, and game play can be seen as art (for those wishing to have that title placed on games). By explaining his position on why the game Rez, Brockway shows how he came to the conclusion that this game can be considered art and by supplying evidence for his conclusion he validates it instead of it just seeming like he is giving a biased opinion as Ebert and Santiago clearly do in their works.

What do you consider ART?

In Roger Ebert's piece "Video Games Can Never Be Art," he provides a very compelling argument as to why HE does not feel video games are art. I understand why there was so much controversy over his article and why gamers would like to show a validate arguement highlighting how video games are art. The real issue is not if video games are art instead it is a question that has no real answer: what is art? This is an almost impossible question to answer as all responses to it are subjective. Ebert introduces in his piece a presentation done at USC by Kelle Santiago, who works/studies within the world of game making. In this piece she tries to provide a convincing argument as to why video games are art but honestly falls short for a variety of reason. First, she starts her argument by declaring that games are art and then proceeds to provide examples of what is considered art in society, from cave drawings to Michelangelo. Next she goes on to defining her definition of art and then moves to showing games in her opinion that she considers art. The defining of art is where she lost her argument because I did not agree with how she defined it and I definetly did not see any art in the video games she showed in her examples. Maybe my response would be different if I played the games but seeing a screenshot or small amount of game play did nothing to bolster her argument that games are art, at least for me.

In Rich Stanton's article "Who Framed Roger Ebert," he perfectly explores the subjective issues of what is art and if video games can be art. The most crucial point that Stanton makes is how hard it is to define art  and how there is a inclusive group of people who determines what art is. Stanton points out defining something as art is a form of exclusivity. By forcing the issue that games are art, the gaming community is in essence asking to be included into this exclusive society of art. Stanton and Ebert both make a point in their piece about why the gaming community needs a label like "art" placed on games. Ebert states that a gamer should just play and enjoy a game and forget what others think of it and Stanton states that it seems that the gaming community is looking for validation in order to not feel like the hours they spent gaming was not wasted time. I agree with both Ebert and Stanton and feel that the bottom line is this - art is a personal definition and that definition is supported with subjective evidence. So what I feel is art is not what someone else deems art and that is ok. Issues arise when someone forces a subjective title like art onto something and fights to defend that title knowing how exclusionary that effort is. If someone thinks a game is art then kudos to them but that does not mean I also have to consider it art. Each individual is entitled to their opinion like Ebert, Stanton, and Santiago but because art is so subjective there will never be one clear winner on this debate as there will always be one side calling games art and the other side yelling that it isn't. In order to end the debate - everyone needs to just stop placing labels on everything and simply enjoy what they like without naming it as art or junk or time-wasting or high class.

We're Watching YOU...

In Michel Foucault's piece "Panopticism" he describes a method of control in which a group of society (i.e. prison, schools, hospitals) are placed into an environment in which the thought of being under constant observation determines how they respond and act to any given situation. Foucault describes panopticism best when describing how the plague was controlled during it's outbreak centuries ago - it is a system of keeping people isolated but under constant observation from an unseen/seen entity of power. It is this observation that alters how people react to their isolation as one would be less likely to do anything adverse when in the back of their brain they know someone is always watching them. The game "The Stanley Parable" is a good example of this concept of panopticism. The game is centered around one character called Stanley who has for years has been blinding doing his "boring" job without questioning his purpose or his importance within his own company. Stanley does his job as told simply because he is following orders and never questions anything, so when one day no one in the office is there and no orders are given to him to complete Stanley actually has to think for himself and this leads to the breakdown of the wall between Stanley and the powers that be. As Stanley breaks away from the order that has been laid out for him he finds out that everything in his life has been controlled by an outside force that watches him constantly and as the game progresses the game player has a choice of six different endings to the game. However, it is soon revealed that no matter what choice the player makes, the narrator has absolute control and if one does not follow his orders to a "T" the ultimate punishment is death. This is in direct correlation to Foucault's example of how the plague was handled through the use of an overseeing entity that watched every move made by the quarantined made and if they did not follow protocol they were subjected to the punishment of death.

There are many ways in which games (besides "The Stanley Parable") use this ideology of panopticism because games are created and designed with every possible outcome already mapped out and predetermined. Even though a player may feel they are making independent choices they are in essence making a predefined choice that will lead to another predefined choice or disposition. A player of a game literally has no real control within the game as all game play, no matter the choices made, have been laid out and conceptualized, creating a barrier that a player can never escape. Even in games like Skyrim, a game known for it's open format and story-line progression, the player is not free to make his or her own choices. Every choice of dialogue, location, quest, etc has been predetermined by the game creator and there is no way to circumvent this absolute control of the creator. Another example of panopticism I looked into was Italo Calvino's novel called, If on a winter's night a traveler, which is constructed in such a way that the reader has no ability to resolve the conflicts laid out by the text. Each chapter alternates between being a numbered chapter or a named chapter, and in each of these chapters a different story is being told with different characters, conflicts, and setting then the chapter that preceded it. Calvino, as the author, can be an example of "the overseer" archetype in Foucault's piece on panopticism because he is the creator of the construct of the novel and has complete (but invisible) control over the reader. As the reader, one can attempt to take control by just reading the numbered chapters or the named chapters in order to find a resolution to any of the conflicts in the text but ultimately finds out that Calvino created a novel that has no resolution to any of the conflicts that he flushes out within each chapter. By doing this Calvino created an open text that the reader can explore but gives the reader no real freedom to go outsides the boundaries he has set before them.

Existentialism Confuses Me

The readings on Existentialism didn't really aide me in reading Kafka's "Before the Law" or the game of the same name by Brandon Brizzi mostly because I read them from a more Marxist point of view. I chose to see a focus more on class then on anything related to Existentialism which might be due to my previous close studies of the different school of literary theory. Once I read Sarte's works and reflected back on Kafka's story and Brizzi's game I can see how Existentialism aides in providing an answer to why the"country man" never gains the knowledge of the law. The "country man" does not think for himself and in the story he wastes away waiting for permission to gain access to the knowledge he seeks, he makes no active effort to go against what he is told by "the gatekeeper". In the game you are given an additional option the story does not afford - the ability to think for one's self and go against "the gatekeeper's" warning and proceed forward, however once the book of law is found the "country man" sees that there is nothing in it - it's blank. I also found this to be a part of the ideology of Existentialism as a person can't just find the answers but must work to find the answers themselves; there is no magic book, only the individual can find for themselves the knowledge they seek.

Existentialism is hard to define and is rather dense and complex. While reading Jean Paul Sartre's works on the subject the one take away I found was the idea that "existence precedes essence," which is also hard to define but what I gathered from it is best defined in the realm of the gaming world - as it is just too vast an idea for me to grasp in a real world capacity - a game is created (it exists) but the game is nothing until an a person (essence) plays it. This I found to be one of the issues I had with existentialism - it is just too confusing. According to this ideology I am a individual, with my own thoughts and sense of being, but how I define myself is still based on stereotypes, social and cultural influences, and many other external factors, so it begs the question - Am really an individual, defining myself by my own choices and decision, when I can only define myself within the limitations previously set? I really don't have an answer but I think existentialism is grander in thought then in practice. 

"Before the Law" Game vs Story

Franz Kafka's "Before the Law" and the game of the same name, shows how destructive inaction can be in one's life. The overwhelming feeling achieved by this short story was of wasted opportunities due to an inability to take actions based on one's own convictions. An image that stood out for me was the fur coat of the gatekeeper and the focus on the man being from the country. It seems by placing those seeking knowledge as the "country" folk and the ones in control of the knowledge as the fur lined "gatekeeper" that Kafka is also speaking to how the rich control knowledge not allowing those they deem unworthy to gain knowledge.

By playing the game I was given the option to control the "country man" and at first I followed with Kafka's story-line and waited, receiving a similar ending as in the story but added with it was the game creators commentary on the wastefulness of this waiting, inserting himself into not only the game but also supplying a voice missing in the short story.  The alternate ending allowed me to be in control of the Kafka's story, supplying a conscious voice to a flat character of the "country man". By allowing the player to have control one can subvert the gatekeeper's purpose, choosing instead to break through the doors keeping knowledge at bay. Unfortunately the ending advises that no knowledge is to be found as the book of law is empty - no words on the page. This ending is perverse as one would hope to have gained some sort knowledge  from the game-play but as with Kafka's piece and the other ending - there is no happy ending for those seeking knowledge; either they die from waiting for the knowledge to come to them or they find out the what they were seeking was a ghost, something that was never real to begin with.