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.