The Jenkins article and beginning of Bogost’s book make arguments for the specific ways that videogames function as a specific medium with a particular rhetoric and aesthetic mode. What aspects of gaming do you find most distinctive, and how do they work to persuade or create an artistic possibility?
I also want to collect links to online games that seem relevant to our study – try to play around with some of them to get a sense of different possibilities. Here are a few that Bogost discusses or that offer examples of political games:
Persuasive Games – Bogost’s own studio, which includes the Dean for Iowa game and many others
After reading Bogost’s ‘Persuasive Games’ I was really shocked about all the different genres of games that are out there and how anyone could find a game that would satisfy their needs/interests. I thought it was interesting when Bogost made the argument that: “We often despise the role of computers in our lives. They are inflexible systems that cannot empathize, that attempt to treat everyone the same”(6). Computers are machines and they don’t go outside of standard procedures, or the procedures they are programmed for. Video games, however, are a variety and there are games to educate, entertain, compete, etc. that when played, everyone plays in their own style and environment.
Bogost also makes an interesting argument when he says that the classroom is not the only place where we can learn. In today’s society we have to learn through not just teaching but through experience: “The game does not offer solutions to these problems; rather, it suggests that education takes place not in the classroom alone, but in ongoing affinties and disparities in educational, social, and professional goals…personal politics indelibly mark the learning experience”(2). It’s not really possible to play a video game without paying attention or else the game will eventually fail and you have to start over again. When compared to the classroom environment, it’s easy to lose focus and not gain anything from the class.
So instead of typical “fixed” and “unquestionable” procedures, people turn to video games where they have several different possibilities to choose from depending on their taste. Whether someone is interested in sports, advertising, politics, etc., they will likely learn from the game and be able to create their own personal simulation of how the game should operate.
Clearly, the most distinctive feature of computer gaming–what makes it stand out from every other medium–is the level of control over what happens. There are exceptions, especially as we look further back in time. One of those “choose your own ending books” gives you a more freedom over what happens then say, Pong; but with respect to modern (>5-8 years ago) computer games, most of the good ones do what other mediums can only try to: bring you inside. As part of our discussion about comics, we read and talked about how the drawing style of Tintin–rich backgrounds but simple characters–allows us to project ourselves onto the intrepid reporter, so its as though we are solving crimes with our faithful dogs. Kids walk out of an action movie mimicking the hero’s speech or movements and everyone loves Harry Potter because we wish (even if just a little bit) that we could be a part of that magical world and not silly little muggles. Computer games allow us to pretend in a much more convincing way that we are taking part in these stories, that we can influence whether or not Voldemort or evil Sith guys win in the end.
This is where the art of modern video games has a chance to really shine, because they can build upon characters or worlds that have already taken root in culture via books, television, or cinema. Of course, the opposite can be true too. Carmen Sandiego was a computer game years before it hit the airwaves. But until now, computer games have stretched the limits of computer and graphics technology in such a way that the level of computer artistry has been pretty low. I think we have just about reached “critical mass” for video game tech, and there will be an explosion of art made possible by these advances we are just starting to see.
The most “artistic” game I have seen is one that isn’t out yet, but the website has some pretty neat videos. Due out this summer, LucasArts’ “The Force Unleashed” is going to blow peoples’ mind I suspect. A documentary on their website illustrates how the artists were truly in control over the project. The first step was literally “writing” the game, a process that took a year and which meant opening up the “canon” (as they called it) of Star Wars, and creating new story that fits in between the old trilogies and the new (read crappier) trilogies. With these newfangled PS3 and XBox consoles (the game will not be sold for computer) they had the graphics and computational power to really let loose creatively and worry less over whether or not the thing would crash and burn.
This is the wave of the future, and in the next few years we will see the video game creative process become virtually indistinguishable from the motion picture (especially Pixaresque) creative process. Already they are employing the same technologies. The Force Unleashed uses the same (in fact, more advanced) “motion capture” technologies that allowed Andy Serkis to bring Gollum to life. Naturally, the character performances and animation will be beyond anything seen yet coming from a console game.
I’m not a big gamer, but I still think its pretty neat. Check out the documentaries online: http://www.lucasarts.com/games/theforceunleashed/?#/documentaries/
Video games, like cinema and television in particular, emotionally involve the user (or audience). The difference with a game, of course, is that the user has some kind of stake in the results of his or her actions; that is to say, we mentally wear the mask of the character for a while (arguably easier in a first-person game), aided and abetted by our ability to completely control that character’s every move (as Ross mentioned). This struck me as I tried out “Darfur is Dying” and realized that I was genuinely upset when Poni was captured by the men in the terrifying truck that pulled out of a distance-haze and gradually came closer and closer . . . a fear response. I don’t normally play games that generate a fear response. I play adventure games not unlike old-fashioned text-based games, except they have (now astounding) graphical interfaces. I nonetheless get emotionally involved and feel that it is somehow “important” for me to do whatever it is the game asks of me. I find that many of the games I play embed some kind of message or other about either things we ought to do as a part of society or things that are wrong with society, and that I accept whatever the message is, if only for a while, because it is a necessary component of the stake I take in choosing to play the game.
One aspect of video games that should not be underestimated is the possibility of something approaching a “total immersion” into a world. This immersion takes place even without the “virtual reality” technologies that ten years ago everyone said would form the next wave of digital interactivity. There are few—if any—media that can be as wholly consuming, participatory, and—dare I say it?—addictive. The reasons behind this total immersion are not as simple as the graphical and audio representations that nowadays basically approximate reality, although I think that those interfaces are a large part of the addictive appeal of video games. More important, I would say, is a player’s ability to essentially exist in a world—not to imagine themselves existing in it, or to watch others existing in it, but to participate in that world according to its rules—its procedures. I can waste hours playing Civilization IV—not because its graphics are somehow “mesmerizing,” but because I am enthralled by the possibility of having my civilization succeed against all comers according to a set of world rules that more or less approximates the social, political, and economic constraints of “real-world” history.
This immersion even occurs in games where the procedural rhetoric has been obviously structured to make a political or socially conscious statement. I played the McDonalds game for a straight half hour earlier today—not because the game was somehow mindlessly addictive (although it is undeniably fun), but because I wanted to explore variations on the procedural rhetoric of the game. At first I played the game as “heartless corporate capitalist”—I put hormones in the meat, bulldozed the rainforest, bribed officials, everything—and quickly ran out of money. Starting over, I played as the “fiscal conservative”—my only aim was to turn a profit. I found the second variation much more addictive and satisfying (even though I eventually lost again), and even gained a bit of an experiential insight into the reasoning behind the operation of a corporation like McDonalds, at least according to the procedural rhetoric of the game. No film—no matter how insightful it is or how many Big Macs Morgan Spurlock eats in it—could ever have done that.
I think I’ve just persuaded myself to play again.
One aspect of video games that Jenkins discusses is the fact that people who play them identify themselves with the characters. this reminded me of what macleod had said about comics: early video games had simpler and less identifiable characters. however, right now they look more and more like real people… and i guess it is because it is trying to copy movies, as some people argue.
another distinctive quality of games, which is also discusses in the article, is that you need to have certain technologies in order to produce them. in other words: the more money you have, the better quality games you can come up with. the article argues that this is a characteristic present in other forms of art, such as films. however, i personally believe that in games technology plays a more important role than in any other form of expression.
think of this: even though we see movies with loads of special effects and crazy uses of technologies, there are still filmmakers who make movies with simple, old cameras. and people watch them. but how many people would play a game now that has the graphic quality of a game from 20 years ago?
so these are two distinctive qualities of games: you “become” the character, and technology is very important.
a third thing that games provoke is some sort of addiction. game makers want their users to want to play their game forever, and to buy a better version of it as soon as it comes out. i think people who make any other form of art aren’t thinking about “hypnotizing” their spectators/users. well, one could say that pop-catchy songs have this end in mind, but again, is that art?
i am still trying to figure out whether i consider games art. but my second argument (the fact that one needs a certain amount of money in order to enter the games world) makes me think that it is not…
can anyone convince me otherwise, please?
When Derek brought up “virtual reality technologies,” I couldn’t help but think back to when I was 12ish when my dad would take my twin sister and me to the virtual reality place before the movies. He’d give the clerks ten bucks, then they would place the awkwardly large viewing helmets on our heads, hands us our gun-shaped controllers, and walk us into these circles lined with motion detecting sensors. The graphics weren’t great (blocky shapes, a lack of texture, etc.), but like Derek says that doesn’t really matter when you are experiencing something different. As Jenkins quotes in his article, “the special virtue of videogames is precisely their limitless plasticity…we want to lose ourselves in a space that is utterly different. We want environments that have never been seen, never been imagined before.” When we go to the movies or look at a photo, whatever reality is depicted must have been physically constructed before it was captured (excluding CGI and animation of course). Thus, film/photographs are limited to reproducing aspects of the world in which we actually exist (arguably better than a video game). Video games, however, have a much greater capacity for “invention” rather than just reproduction of an already existing reality. Sure, the star trek films can depict something like a spaceship flying through space. However, without the use of computers, the materials used to create that ship must be from this world (i.e. balsa wood and paint). The dilithium crystals aren’t actually dilithium crystals. As our imaginations grow, eventually there will be worlds we wish to create that simply cannot be recreated using existing elements of our reality. It would seem that Ross has made a pretty good prediction of the future direction of motion pictures towards the computer generated realm.
Furthermore, in regards to Micaela’s comment about the potential of players to identify with and “become” characters, video games can allow us to become someone/something that couldn’t exist in this world. I switch on Halo III and within a minute I am parading around as an armor plated alien wielding a plasma pistol. We could watch a depiction of this alien in a film, but we could never carry out the alien processes (i.e. firing a plasma bolt) the way we can in a video game.
Another distinctive feature of this medium is what Bogost calls “selective interactivity.” Films have a level selective reproduction or depiction in that a deliberate choice is made to show us certain things and omit others. In video games, a deliberate choice can be made in regards to what we can do in the game and what we can’t do. In a lot of first person shooters, the option for friendly fire is turned off or the level will end if you attempt it (although this is changing with recent games like Halo that allow you to change this rule if you prefer). The message put forth here is that one should only fire upon his enemies and be faithful to his allies.
Finally, the cultural assumption that video games are just that – fun games – is in many ways a strength. The problem with documentary films, education television, etc. is that consumers might not connect to them as much because they know are being fed green veggies so to speak. Gamers, on the other hand, often assume that every aspect of a video game is designed to entertain and thus embrace the often educational messages simply as fun.
Henry Jenkin brings up many interesting points of analysis that the average player of games would not consider. He looks at games as art, or what he terms “new lively art”. Video games have evolved and become interwoven with the popular culture. New technological advances offer new resources and possibilities for the gaming medium. By using video games in innovative and progressive ways, it allows for new creative potentials of the emerging medium. In his article, Jenkins points out the aesthetic dimension and its great possibilities within game design. He urges for game designers to “not simply as technicians producing corporate commodities but rather as artists mapping the dimensions and potentials of an emerging medium; this reorientation, it was hoped, would force them to ask harder questions in their design meetings and to aspire towards more depth and substance in the product they shipped”.
Jenkins brings up the very relevant debate and contemporary issue of the social ideologies of art. He discusses the art world’s discriminating assumptions about lowbrow art forms that they deem lacking meaningful content or artistic form. He addresses the aesthetic consideration of the video game medium saying, “The category of aesthetics has considerable power in our culture, helping to define not only cultural hierarchies but also social, economic, and political ones as well. The ability to dismiss certain forms of art as inherently without value paves the way for regulatory policies; the ability to characterize certain media forms as “cultural pollution” also impacts how the general public perceives those people who consume such material; and the ability to foreclose certain works from artistic consideration narrows the ambitions and devalues the accomplishments of people who work in those media.”
What I find to be most intriguing about the video game medium is what Jenkins tems “memorable moments”. The power for a player to be submerged into the game while the game designers construct and dictate players’ emotional response is an aspect of gaming that I feel can progress gaming into new directions. Gaming, unlike other mediums, initiates thought-provoking responses, intense connections, universality, emotional appeal and a sense of immediacy. For these reasons, I am interested in game design for education and exploring the medium for cognitive and awareness studies.
Here are some links to websites that are using game design for education:
Games for Change: http://www.gamesforchange.org/
New School: Press Release
http://www.newschool.edu/pressroom/pressreleases/2006/061506_parsons_gamesforchange.html
I don’t think I can really say anything new that hasn’t been said before. Like everyone else has stated, video games are immersive, emotionally engaging, and controllable. What I think is really distinct about gaming is the fact that virtually any audience can be reached by it. Who doesn’t enjoy games? We play them from the time we are young, so a game is an easy way to teach something, prove something, express a new idea, or market just about anything.
Let’s just think about the rating system for video games in America. You’ve either got games for children under seven years old (meaning they involve little or no violence) or games for 18+ users that may involve graphic sexual content. In fact, there is a whole genre of games called “galge” in Japan that specialize in pornographic content. The range is incredible, and that’s just the entertainment sector.
Like the example Bogost used of the teaching simulation game to teach new educators how to handle their students and co-workers, there are games out there that can be used as tools to orient new employees. I remember as a kid learning how to type using the Mavis Beacon game (old school, I know). As I progressed in speed and accuracy, the game would give me new goals to meet and push me harder. Before I knew it I was typing proficiently just by playing a game.
As far as the possibility of creating art is concerned, I think the potential of games is limitless. With the new generation of games allowing users to completely customize their gaming experience, art can be created by anyone who is interested. Narration is also being stretched to its limits. Once again in Japan there is a genre of video games called “visual novels” in which a user sort of reads a lot of the “novel” on screen while interacting in some scenes. Here the narrative quality of the game is the primary focus, while the “gaming” quality is secondary. It’s like playing an RPG but without level grinding.
If video games are anything like the cinema in that they are basing their content on what has come before them, and are slowly growing into something completely new and different, I can’t wait to see what will happen. The possibilities really are limitless.
Video Games
Video games have the ability to respond to the consumer—a trait that books, movies, and television cannot do. Unlike a movie or a book, which both have an end point (you watch the movie you read the book, and then it’s over) a video game has a much longer replay value, especially depending on what type of game it is. For sports games, you can always play new opponents (humans) or start new seasons in the game. This allows you to try new strategies and work on new ways to play. I’m thinking of Madden (a football game) and I know that there are so many ways to play the game that it seems almost impossible to exhaust.
Similarly, Bogost mentions Grand Theft Auto III a game that has tremendous amounts of freedom and replay value. You can follow the linear missions, but even these typically have several ways to complete an individual assignment. For example, I remember an early mission that requires you to kill a rival pimp. The game goes through the elaborate process of giving you a gun, but when I actually caught up to the guy I was supposed to kill, I just ran him over with my car. The game allows this type of freedom and “creativity” to do things however the user wants to. Bogost does remind us that that this particular game, the user cannot do “whatever he wants” but “whatever his wants in the context of the game.” You don’t even have to follow the missions. I find the game just as entertaining cruising around in a car shooting people. There are many ways to enjoy a game as complex as GTAIII.
A final note about interesting aspects of games; I used to play the America’s Army game Bogost describes in his political games chapter. That game try to be as “realistic” as it could be, requiring users to coordinate their attacks as opposed to just acting like “tanks” and individually attacking the enemy. But like so many shooter games, people eventually hacked it and modified that game’s design to play the way they wanted. One of the nicest aspects of the game was the required score to get access to the sniper rifle. This was actually a very difficult test—you had to hit 38 out of 40 targets, and I was honestly never able to pass it to get the sniper rifle. On one particular server, however, the creator “hacked” the weapons menu and allowed anyone who wanted to use a sniper rifle to have one. There will always be hacks and cheat codes in video games, because I feel it’s a part of gaming culture, but it just seems like it can be disingenuous to the creator’s original design to hack some of the fundamental elements of the game.
In this day and age, the line between game, and interactive narrative are constantly being blurred. As been mentioned, there are games for practically every sort of person out there. Puzzle games, action games, text games, economy games, fantasy games; some even go as far as to combine all of the types into one crazy blend.
The fact that it’s becoming more and more easy to hack into these games is something useful as well, in that it opens up possibilities for amateur creators to go out there and make their own work, much in the same way of Remix Videos, by using material that exists already. Back when Doom first came out, I remember one of the first mods was a barney mod, where the creator replaced all the monsters with a Barney sprite that you could blow to pieces. It might be small now, but back then, that was a huge leap as far as user interactivity is concerned.
Another great example is the game Counter Strike, which started as a mod based on the game Half Life by Valve. It became so incredibly successful, that Valve bought the game rights, and it became one of the most popular online multiplayer games of all time, and is played even now to ridiculous amounts.
For those who prefer a little more cinematic quality in their games, just look at RPGs (Final Fantasy and the like), which combine beautiful graphics, and stirring music with a wildly imaginative narrative that contains deeply complex characters that people spend hours on message boards discussing. In this way, a video game I think can surpass a film as far as narrative worth is concerned if only because a game can use up to 70 hours to tell its story, while a film tends to be around two hours. Another example of a very cinematic game series are the Metal Gear Solid games. They take in elements of real world issues, and create an espionage quasi war game with them. The characters are very real and three dimensional, and the stories are relatable. These narratives hold just as much worth, it not more, than any story told in a book or movie.
Of course, I haven’t even remotely touched upon the educational games for children that I played as a youth, but needless to say, video games can be extremely beautiful and beneficial to our society.
As other people pointed out, the thing that makes video games distinctive from other forms of media is the fact that the user is control of what happen–it is a highly interactive “lean forward” medium. Another distinctive element that both Bogost and Jenkins point out is that video games as a medium draws heavily from the medium of film/television. How do these distinctive elements work to create or persuade an artistic element?
Well, to begin with there is the question of whether or not games are art. In my opinion, this is a distracting question. Art is whatever you say art is. As I said when in my post regarding comics, I believe art is the act of framing–of saying “this is art.”
But still, are video games effective art? Do they convey a message? Certainly as Jenkins points out in the online article (and Jessie pointed out in her post) video games convey emotional responses. That is part of their goal, what hooks the user. But still, there is something unsettling (for me at least) in calling video games art. I would equate most video games more to sports than to art. The object of most video games is to play and win. This is not present in most conventional definitions of art. (This does not mean I’m falling back on the stereotypical societal condemnations of art Jenkins and Bogost both describe).
But once again, the question of whether or not video games are art is distracting. From the perspective of this course, it doesn’t really matter whether or not they are art. They are an important medium, and no one can dispute that they have artistic elements in them.
Hey guys,
Reading Bogost made me think of my days of playing Dreamcast. I loved the game “Jet Set Radio.” Now, I realize that playing the game was the first time that I participated in (virtual) subversive activity. Skating around a city and bombing it with graffiti while taking my orders from a pirate radio station just seemed like fun at the time. The idea that video games can be used to express the interplay of various power structures and cultural norms within society had never really occurred to me as I played J.S.R. I now question whether that period gave way to my sarcastic attitude towards the structural underpinnings of American society. It’s certain that my affinity towards the writers of the Beat Generation soon followed my interaction with the game although it might be a stretch to say that they were related. In terms of graffiti though, that was definitely my first exposure to the subculture and the nature of its symbolic activities.
I find certain video games to be very fertile grounds for semiotics. Many of the cultural symbols that we take for granted are manipulate and exaggerated in video games. Take Bogost’s own example of the significance of fast food in GTA S.A..
It’s certain that we are subtly manipulated by symbols all day. This manipulation exists in games and as a result blurs the distinction between physical and virtual reality in a way that has certainly influenced cultural change. The fact that simple games can be produced and distributed freely coupled with my “blur effect” makes them a force to be reckoned with by the establishment. Could these games may become the front line of many a subversive battle? Maybe the real question is whether the powers that be have the intuition to slug back.
From my experiences, there are several aspects that I would consider to be distinctive about gaming. The majority of the games that I play are those that try to make what you see on the television as realistic as possible. I would say that the games that I have spent the most time playing over the past few year of my life to be that of Shooting games like Halo 3, and Call of Duty 4 and also games like Gran Turismo 4. I think the reason why I play these games the most is because they seem to try and become more and more realistic. I have played each of these games from the very first version up until their current one and I think that each of these games tries to make the next version more realistic than the previous.
The reason why I think that this is important is because this is one of the reasons why I buy new consoles and new games; to see how they have surpassed previous aesthetics of gaming. I think that it is insane to look back to the days of Nintendo as a little kid and then think of how gaming has evolved during my life. What I think is even more crazy is how kids nowadays think of XBOX 360 as I thought of Nintendo in terms of it being their gaming console as a child.
I think that in terms of being distinct, gaming has become a ticket into a different world. By becoming more and more realistic it allows for your imagination to run free and experience things that you otherwise might not be able to in real life.
“Game designers were being urged to think of themselves not simply as technicians producing corporate commodities but rather as artists mapping the dimensions and potentials of an emerging medium.” This quote from the Jenkins article struck me because it made me realize that we really are living in a technological age, when game designers who play with code all day, are now being considered artists. I don’t disagree with this quote in any way, but I just find it an interesting perspective on the gaming culture. For instance, does this mean that if designers are the “artists,” that the players now critique this art, and are called “game critics” rather than just “gamers?” This inquiry of mine leads to another quote of Jenkins’: “Game designers, policy makers, art critics, fans, and academics all took a position on the question of whether computer games could be considered an art form and what kinds of aesthetic categories made sense for discussing them.”
With the advancement of technology now, compared to what we had in the 70s and 80s, gaming consoles and computers have a much greater capacity and can hold games that are endless with possibilities. This is one of the main challenges for game designers today that I find interesting. According to Jenkins, “early console games also demanded economy, given the limited memory capacity of the early systems,” and in the present, “some fear that game designers are adding too many features which get in the way of the core mechanics.” Another aspect game designers must consider while creating is to make sure the player will feel like they are in control, “even though their game play and emotional experience is significantly sculpted by the designer.” For example, as referred to in the article, I remember playing Sonic the Hedgehog as well, running and spinning at really fast speeds along with the intense soundtrack, all under my own control. There are other games, however, such as simulation games, that hinder your control because of the other player, either person or computer. Like “Facade,” I know of a computer simulation that is very fun and interesting. It isn’t really a game, but relates to the simulation of Facade that would actually make it a whole lot better. Here’s the link:
A.L.I.C.E.