Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Artsy Fartsy Videogames?
Videogames are a form of art, but like any other piece of art there are different kinds. Coming from a writing and poetry background, there's always been the discussion of whether the author's intent matters or not once the finished product is presented. In a way, this is the same with videogames.
What I mean is that some games have a very specific message in mind. Like novels, they take the reader through a journey with one message or moral in mind. Each interaction and battle is composed to make a natural path to the end result which usually involves some kind of realization or moral lesson. Most RPGs are modeled after this novel style of presentation.
On the other hand, some games, like Infamous and Bioshock, leave the decisions up to the player, thus creating a less linear and more open experience. Like some kinds of abstract poetry, the story will require the player to use their own experience to make the game what they want. They can often choose between two or more paths. Even though they may have lessons or commentary at the end, the decisions about how to interpret and experience the game are made by the player.
Then again, some are made purely for the enjoyment of the moment. The games are made with beautiful graphics and stories that aren't entirely too involved. Games like Zelda or Okami, the story is there to guide the player but the real enjoyment is getting from point A to point B and making accomplishments in the mean time. Zelda forms the story throughout the game, but only to compel the player to travel through the different dungeons and side quests. The ending is satisfying enough to justify the time taken, but the real joy is within the play and the journey itself.
Art doesn't simply refer to the graphics, and while some games are certainly made with a more artistic driven style, the entire experience is an art in itself. The good ones draw the players to converse about them and take a vested interest. The bad ones are either bad because they fail to do what they set out, or they fail on a number of other levels. But in the end, it's the experience that counts.
What I mean is that some games have a very specific message in mind. Like novels, they take the reader through a journey with one message or moral in mind. Each interaction and battle is composed to make a natural path to the end result which usually involves some kind of realization or moral lesson. Most RPGs are modeled after this novel style of presentation.
On the other hand, some games, like Infamous and Bioshock, leave the decisions up to the player, thus creating a less linear and more open experience. Like some kinds of abstract poetry, the story will require the player to use their own experience to make the game what they want. They can often choose between two or more paths. Even though they may have lessons or commentary at the end, the decisions about how to interpret and experience the game are made by the player.
Then again, some are made purely for the enjoyment of the moment. The games are made with beautiful graphics and stories that aren't entirely too involved. Games like Zelda or Okami, the story is there to guide the player but the real enjoyment is getting from point A to point B and making accomplishments in the mean time. Zelda forms the story throughout the game, but only to compel the player to travel through the different dungeons and side quests. The ending is satisfying enough to justify the time taken, but the real joy is within the play and the journey itself.
Art doesn't simply refer to the graphics, and while some games are certainly made with a more artistic driven style, the entire experience is an art in itself. The good ones draw the players to converse about them and take a vested interest. The bad ones are either bad because they fail to do what they set out, or they fail on a number of other levels. But in the end, it's the experience that counts.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
What to do, what to do?
Videogames are used for so many different reasons: stress relief, escape, socialization. What happens when the drive to play is there, but the willingness isn't?
I love games. I have played all sorts of games and spent hours upon hours with games. The problem lately is that I get home and the thought of playing a game seems to be akin to doing laundry. I'm not sure how to break myself out of this funk and the blog seems to be drifting into a rant. But, my question is how do we get out of that funk? And how do we get in it?
I've always been a solo gamer, being an only child and friends who didn't quite see the draw to videogames. Is this normal?
I love games. I have played all sorts of games and spent hours upon hours with games. The problem lately is that I get home and the thought of playing a game seems to be akin to doing laundry. I'm not sure how to break myself out of this funk and the blog seems to be drifting into a rant. But, my question is how do we get out of that funk? And how do we get in it?
I've always been a solo gamer, being an only child and friends who didn't quite see the draw to videogames. Is this normal?
Monday, September 21, 2009
Too Critical Critics
After reading through a few of our readings, I see a theme of critics being critical of other critics. In short, the gyst is that a lot of critics are too hung up on petty details instead of praising games that deserve them. I do agree in some sense. One example that comes to mind is the Zero Punctuation 'author', Yahtzee. He refers rather often to his Psychonauts review in which he said it was one of the best games ever made. After getting enough responses about his lack of finding problems, he adds them into his more recent reviews. His latest about Arkham Asylum is one of those that he praised and said was an excellent game, but it had its flaws.
Is this such a problem? As Simon Parkin said in his "Truth and Judgment" article, Games are defined just as much by what they don’t do as by what they do". True it's more often that we look at what a game offers in our decision, but what they don't do can take away from the enjoyment of the game. There's nothing worse than a good game with a horrible camera. Just recently I was talking with a store manager about one of the games he really liked, and the one downfall he said was that the graphics weren't as good as they could be. In a day where we have so much technological ability with videogames, is it acceptable for some to skimp on some of them?
True, the graphics don't make the gameplay. On the other hand, they can detract from the game. It's like the old NES games that most of us remember fondly and spent hours upon hours playing, yet when we replay them, they lack a little something. Many times its the old graphics that we find fault with. Case in point, Final Fantasy 7: I can't remember how many letters to the editor sections I've read where people are asking and pleading for a remake to that game for the new consoles. There's nothing wrong mechanically with the PlayStation version, but it would look amazing with the new Blu-Ray technology. Nobody is asking for battle system changes, or the materia system, but simply the graphics to show the game in a better light.
One other topic that's always a peeve of mine is whether reviews actually do anything. I think we need to remember that reviews are going to be an individual's take on the game. However, depending on what they say can sway readers. If a magazine rates a shooter 10 points out of 10, doesn't mean that everyone will rush out and grab it. I tend to suck at shooters, but every so often I have this urge to try one. The reviews do help figure out whether I'll at least tollerate the game or not. If I'm not good at patience and taking cover, then I realize that Gears of War isn't for me. But if I'm looking for a much more relaxed and straight forward shooting game, I might opt for Resistance or Left 4 Dead. At the same time, if I buy a shooter, I'm not going to get angry with the reviewer for saying it was a good game when I didn't like it. It's a tool just like the pictures on the box. You can get a good idea of what the game can be like, but the only way to be sure is to actually play it.
Is this such a problem? As Simon Parkin said in his "Truth and Judgment" article, Games are defined just as much by what they don’t do as by what they do". True it's more often that we look at what a game offers in our decision, but what they don't do can take away from the enjoyment of the game. There's nothing worse than a good game with a horrible camera. Just recently I was talking with a store manager about one of the games he really liked, and the one downfall he said was that the graphics weren't as good as they could be. In a day where we have so much technological ability with videogames, is it acceptable for some to skimp on some of them?
True, the graphics don't make the gameplay. On the other hand, they can detract from the game. It's like the old NES games that most of us remember fondly and spent hours upon hours playing, yet when we replay them, they lack a little something. Many times its the old graphics that we find fault with. Case in point, Final Fantasy 7: I can't remember how many letters to the editor sections I've read where people are asking and pleading for a remake to that game for the new consoles. There's nothing wrong mechanically with the PlayStation version, but it would look amazing with the new Blu-Ray technology. Nobody is asking for battle system changes, or the materia system, but simply the graphics to show the game in a better light.
One other topic that's always a peeve of mine is whether reviews actually do anything. I think we need to remember that reviews are going to be an individual's take on the game. However, depending on what they say can sway readers. If a magazine rates a shooter 10 points out of 10, doesn't mean that everyone will rush out and grab it. I tend to suck at shooters, but every so often I have this urge to try one. The reviews do help figure out whether I'll at least tollerate the game or not. If I'm not good at patience and taking cover, then I realize that Gears of War isn't for me. But if I'm looking for a much more relaxed and straight forward shooting game, I might opt for Resistance or Left 4 Dead. At the same time, if I buy a shooter, I'm not going to get angry with the reviewer for saying it was a good game when I didn't like it. It's a tool just like the pictures on the box. You can get a good idea of what the game can be like, but the only way to be sure is to actually play it.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Culture What?
Even with having a BA in Philosophy, Mayra makes this chapter almost painfully complicated. After reading the chapter and the end summary, I have a hard time finding where he actually says most of what the summary explains. I can see where he's trying to go with the discussion by talking about how we convey meaning, but he seems to try and draw too much on philosophers that are more interested in either Language or Culture, not so much with both.
His use of Bertrand Russell's example of the game of Cricket being understood by one person and rightfully assuming the other party knew the rules seems out of place to me (pg 19-20). Russell was concerned more with language and the way certain words or concepts can entail specific rules or attributes. I realize he's trying to make a connection with how people can understand concepts, but I'm sure there are other more fitting examples and much more available quotes to use.
So far, I'm not really impressed by the author's attempt at exploring concepts related to gaming. Between last week's pettiness about vocabulary, he launches into this knot of a discussion about a culture.
I do agree that games have an outer-lying culture around the inner workings of the game. However, I'm unclear whether he's tying this in to our overall culture or if it's simply a bubble around the act of playing videogames? He uses examples from people discussing the greater view of a culture and seems to be trying to apply it to the act of playing games. Does anyone else get the feeling that he's trying to make a point but never quite gets to it?
Thursday, September 10, 2009
I was surprised at how petty most of Kyle Orland's complaints are. On one hand, I do realize that he wants to find some standard of vocabulary for writing about video games. I agree with him that we need to come to some understanding about how we approach the writing. If you're going to write about Xbox, then you should at least know how to spell it properly. For something like PlayStation, most people probably don't know the difference whether the S is capitalized or not. For that reason, I think it's more about consistency than specifics. In philosophical writing, you never vary your words because when you do, you change the meaning. If you start out an article writing it as Playstation, I don't think there's a problem as long as you stay consistent in the spelling of it. It would be great if we could come to a general understanding of how we, as writers, want to spell it. The problem is that it will be a process to get there.
What I don't necessarily agree with is his desire to make the review and criticism an entirely hands off process. What I mean by that is when I read a review, I'm reading it for me. The phrase "a batarang will be used in the fight with Poison Ivy" is bothersome in that it sounds more like a random observation than an instruction. I don't necessarily mean that they all should be focused on instructing the reader on how to do things, but taking such an approach is taking away from engaging the reader.
On that same note, his argument against being creative is exceptionally bothersome to me. I've read many reviews where the author was being creative in his approach, or witty in his criticism towards certain aspects. Some people like Yahtzee make a living off approaching game reviews with a touch of creativity and wit. What you get is a personality behind the author and as long as they do so to directly make a point, I think that's better in many ways than to be completely impartial and practical. In his most recent review of Wolfenstein, he does the entire review in limerick form. It's not only entertaining, but he makes actual points about the gameplay. As long as the author isn't shadowing his points and his stance, I think creativity can be a way to draw people in and take interest in not only the game, itself, but in the way we view games as a whole.
What I don't necessarily agree with is his desire to make the review and criticism an entirely hands off process. What I mean by that is when I read a review, I'm reading it for me. The phrase "a batarang will be used in the fight with Poison Ivy" is bothersome in that it sounds more like a random observation than an instruction. I don't necessarily mean that they all should be focused on instructing the reader on how to do things, but taking such an approach is taking away from engaging the reader.
On that same note, his argument against being creative is exceptionally bothersome to me. I've read many reviews where the author was being creative in his approach, or witty in his criticism towards certain aspects. Some people like Yahtzee make a living off approaching game reviews with a touch of creativity and wit. What you get is a personality behind the author and as long as they do so to directly make a point, I think that's better in many ways than to be completely impartial and practical. In his most recent review of Wolfenstein, he does the entire review in limerick form. It's not only entertaining, but he makes actual points about the gameplay. As long as the author isn't shadowing his points and his stance, I think creativity can be a way to draw people in and take interest in not only the game, itself, but in the way we view games as a whole.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Personal History
My history with video games started back with the NES. My father helped my grandfather build a barn and in return my grandfather bought us our first console. I loved the first Zelda games as well as Mario 3. I was young enough that I hadn't gotten into the longer games like Final Fantasy (yet) but I spent hours with the A and B buttons.
It wasn't until I hit 7th grade that we got our first computer. It had a massive hard drive (at the time) and had the newest Windows 3.1 version on it. I never really got into the games like Everquest or Doom. The ones that I really started to play for hours were the Sim games. To date I still have most of them. My favorite one was SimFarm, which was fun until I figured out how to win and I haven't played it much since. Another series that I liked was The 7th Guest. Basically it was a puzzle game with a pretty good story.
The PC held me over until I was about 17 and the Playstation came out. My parents didn't like consoles so I never had the Sega systems or even any later Nintendo systems. So getting the Playstation was a cool feeling, until I found out that I had to buy everything separately (another controller, memory card, cables, and the first game). Even then, it had some really good games and introduced me to the Final Fantasy series. I know all the Final Fantasy fans refer back to FF7 for the best one, but I played every one released for that system and although I adore the story and the atmosphere of 7, my favorite and most fun was 9.
More recently I've ventured over to GameCube and the Wii. I haven't found a great lineup for them, but they're fun for extras like Guitar Hero. I'm planning to get a 360 as soon as funds allow. If nothing else then to play some of the XBox exclusives. They seem to have a better RPG choice than Sony. It's not a bash to Sony, but they've been trying to focus more on action and shooters than the good ol' RPGs.
I do have a PSP that I've played mostly with LocoRoco and the Final Fantasy games. My DS hasn't got much love in the past year or so, but I've been eyeing a few of the puzzle games that seem worth the effort.
It wasn't until I hit 7th grade that we got our first computer. It had a massive hard drive (at the time) and had the newest Windows 3.1 version on it. I never really got into the games like Everquest or Doom. The ones that I really started to play for hours were the Sim games. To date I still have most of them. My favorite one was SimFarm, which was fun until I figured out how to win and I haven't played it much since. Another series that I liked was The 7th Guest. Basically it was a puzzle game with a pretty good story.
The PC held me over until I was about 17 and the Playstation came out. My parents didn't like consoles so I never had the Sega systems or even any later Nintendo systems. So getting the Playstation was a cool feeling, until I found out that I had to buy everything separately (another controller, memory card, cables, and the first game). Even then, it had some really good games and introduced me to the Final Fantasy series. I know all the Final Fantasy fans refer back to FF7 for the best one, but I played every one released for that system and although I adore the story and the atmosphere of 7, my favorite and most fun was 9.
More recently I've ventured over to GameCube and the Wii. I haven't found a great lineup for them, but they're fun for extras like Guitar Hero. I'm planning to get a 360 as soon as funds allow. If nothing else then to play some of the XBox exclusives. They seem to have a better RPG choice than Sony. It's not a bash to Sony, but they've been trying to focus more on action and shooters than the good ol' RPGs.
I do have a PSP that I've played mostly with LocoRoco and the Final Fantasy games. My DS hasn't got much love in the past year or so, but I've been eyeing a few of the puzzle games that seem worth the effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
