"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.