The Good, the Bad and the Lovely

The Good, the Bad and the Lovely – a take on RPG alignments…and love interests

When playing a classic Roleplaying Game such as Dragon Age: Origins (Bioware, 2009.), Baldur’s Gate (Bioware, 1998) or any game that is based on classic pen and paper role-playing rules, the player will probably either choose or play out a certain alignment during the course of the game.  The table of alignment looks something like this

[1]

While it is possible to play out these alignments in a pen and paper role-playing game, at least with a game master who is willing to focus on it, it gets more complicated in video games. Most often the alignment is played out through dialogue options, choice of quests and in the interactions with NPC’s including members of your group. Transferring the same range of alignment choices into a video game without making them meaningless, is an almost impossible task and therefore fails in most games. Usually players go along two lines – either one is the goody or the evil one. Those are usually the choices with the most recognizable consequences which can be the possibility to go places, join societies, get new contacts and goods  for lower prices and sometimes even boosts or the opposite of all that. NPC’s will react accordingly with regards to their own alignment. To play something neutral or chaotic in the middle just wont to any of these things since one never gets enough of a reputation of any kind to trigger the chances in attitude. Some might remember you as somewhat good others as somewhat bad but in the end no NPC will have an meaningful attitude towards you, which might be the true meaning of neutral but it sure is not rewarding for the player.
An additional dimension is added when the player character can and must also interact with her group members. In Dragon Age: Origins the relation to your group members determines not only their will to fight by your side but when the relationship reaches a certain point in the ‘Approval Rating’, the respective companion will get a bonus to their chosen stat.

This is how the appreciation rating is translated into statistics:

Approval Rating	Disposition	Romance
(-100)	Crisis	Interested
-99 - -26	Hostile
-25 - 25	Neutral
26 - 50	Warm
51 - 70		Care
71 - 75		Adore
76 - 90	Friendly
91 - 100		Love
[2]
How the bonuses look like

Approval Rating	Bonus to Stat
25%	+1
50%	+2
75%	+4
90%	+6

[3]

This leads to a whole dimension of micromanagement of your companions which actually goes against what role-play is about. Talking from my own experience I do not necessarily like all of my companions and do not want to make an effort to please them, which would also go against any chosen alignment but neutral good. However, the most effective way of playing a video game makes is beneficial to be on all your members good sides in order to get the at least one of the better boosts. The difficulty presents itself not only within the one on one interaction with the fellow travellers, but in the decisions the player makes while playing. It is hardly possible to make decisions everybody is pleased with, so the player is forced to align with some of the companions and reject others either along the own chosen alignment or in terms of who she prefers to get the boost. Therefore, the relationships arising from gameplay are not to be seen as genuine role-playing choice but often as a compromise between what is beneficial and a personal way of playstyle. Unfortunately the range of choice and variety is shrinking significantly with these mechanics at play. Especially the emergence of a romantic relationship which results of these studious changes seem less meaningful than they potentially could be.
While I enjoy the possibility to play an alignment and have options to react to a certain situation, it is frustrating how arbitrary the reactions and consequences can be. In terms of NPC interaction and quest choices I found my personal playstyle but forced companion relationships are simply not my cup of tea.

References

Bioware, 2009. Dragon Age: Origins. Electronic Arts.

Bioware, 1998. Baldur’s Gate. Black Isle Studios.

---

[1] http://gamerstavern.org/2014/05/

[2] http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Approval

[3] ibid

Watch Dogs and pervasive gaming

Watch Dogs is a game about vigilante Aiden Pearce. The futuristic Chicago is his playground. The entire city is connected by a system called ctOS. This means that traffic lights, pipes, bridges, trains and so on are connected and they are therefore all hackable. Aiden Pearce so happens to be a very skilled hacker and parkour practitioner, using the ctOS system to his own advantage. He hacks through his phone, which enables him to control the city and to check the people he meet on the street. The phone is equipped with a profiler that tells Aiden personal information on the people he profile as well as enable him to steel money from them. Aiden’s greatest weapon is therefore his phone.

The game has multiple online parts including a multiplayer option for a max of 8 players to roam free in the world.

When playing the single-player mode one has the opportunity to join an online game and either race or fight other players. These are online games that will give you points and trophies without affecting your normal gameplay. But requests for racing can be shown on the screen when running around the city freely.

There are two other online games, but in these you enter another players game without their knowledge.

One of them is hacking: here you are challenged to hack another player’s phone without them profiling you.

You therefore enter their world and hack them when they are within sight. Once you start hacking, they will be alerted of your presence and start looking for you. However, you do not look like Aiden Pearce to them, but a random person on the street. They are therefore forced to profile every person they see within the purple circle shown on the map to contain both your locations.

You win the hacking when you have hacked them a 100% and thereby gained the desired file. They win by profiling you and even killing you after.

When getting hacked you can be anywhere in the city, doing whatever you want – except playing the main story. And then you are suddenly under attack. Many players therefore when trying to find the hacker tend to look at “human” behavior such as not crossing the road by the crosswalk, or by speeding and such.

Tailing is a little bit different. Here the player being tailed is told so by the system. They can be wondering around and suddenly notice a person acting differently than an AI. Their job is to profile you and kill you. However, they cannot recognize you as anything other than a normal person so if the player trailing you is good you will not even notice until a sign says that you have been tailed.

The player tailing must be able to blend in and does therefore not necessarily have to hide from the other player.

Another thing about this is that players can tail you while you are looking at the map, trying to decide where to go or basically when you think the game is paused. This is seen when you tail a player standing perfectly still, doing nothing.

A pervasive game is a game that has one or more salient features that expand the contractual magic circle of play socially, spatially or temporally.

 Taking the text: “fun with strangers” McGonigal talks about the game “the comfort of strangers” where the player meet lovers and dancers, giving and taking your lives respectively. You do not know who they are only that they are close and that you have either gained or lost a life. You therefore have to be aware of your surroundings and the strangers around you. They are your friends and foes.

The two mini-games in watch dogs can very well be perceived as pervasive, since they use the ”strangers” surrounding us. However now they are only visually available to us on the screen and not in our own living room. It is a form of game within a game effect. The other online players of the game have the opportunity to enter your game without your knowledge and accept. You are then tasked to find among the AI-people and eliminate them from your game.

The games expand the social of the original game, forcing you to interact with strangers. It also expands temporal as you can be affected even whilst you are “on pause”, looking at the map.

It breaks the magic circle since you are no longer in control of the game world.

The mini-games seem to simulate a pervasive game within the game world of Watch Dogs.

The sudden hacking of your person in the game can be a very overwhelming and scary happening to some players. This leads to players shutting of their console as they are hacked leaving the hacker alone and back in their own game world. Others panic and start shooting every AI near them, in the hopes of getting the hacker. This approach however more often than not leads the player to be chased by the police instead.

When with your console many players are in the confines of their homes, playing against each other, alone or maybe even online. Nevertheless, this sudden intrusion cannot only feel like an intrusion in your game but also like a break in to your home.

The Magic Circle

The metaphorical magic circle of play is a voluntary, contractual structure that is limited in time and space. In Huizinga’s definition of play, it is defined that the participants agree that some activities in some places by the players are interpreted playfully as a part of the game instead of ordinary life.

The magic circle of a game is the boundary separating the ordinary from the ludic and real from playful.  Regular game is played in certain spaces at certain times by certain players.

The magic circle is a metaphor for a barrier that forbid players from bringing external motivations and personal history into the game world. It also forbids the player from taking the game world into the realm of ordinary life.

The conflicts are artificial. In boxing; the pain is real, the conflict is not. This conflict is negotiated by rules. If you cheat, you will be punished or banned. There is one set of rules inside the circle another outside. You cannot go around beating other people in real life as you do in a game of boxing.

But is it true? Are we never affected by what happens in the game world? In the world of sports one would have to disagree. Athletic stars are treated like royalty and paid large sums of money to play for certain teams. As soon as you are paid to play, there is a spillover effect from the game world as your everyday life very well may change because of it. Players are suddenly millionaires and superstars that cannot walk anywhere without signing autographs. None of that would happen if they did not play or if society and people did not care for the sport.

But is this relevant for computer games as well? One might argue that computer games are only a part of a device and therefore cannot cross into the real world. However, if you are chatting with your friends while playing are you then truly within the border of the magic circle or are you somewhere between? What if the game is on your mind in the real world does it then transcend the borders? Or what if you use game slang in your everyday life? There seems to be a spillover effect present for video games as well, since when we play the digital world becomes your context and a way for us to experience new things. It becomes a part of our identity and therefore transcends the device and the magical circle. 

Tekken

Tekken is a game series of martial arts games. Here you are tasked to battle each other with the super skills of the different characters of the game. The players can choose to play in teams or one on one, both on screen and in real life.

On screen, you can choose one character or a team of characters. Off screen, you can be playing alone, one on one or in teams. You decide.

I have played these game in every which way possible. I have played alone, trying to gain characters and their backstory. I have played one on one with my brother. I have played in teams and against different people. And I have spectated others playing the game. Sometimes we would make it a group effort to reach a certain level in arcade mode. When you died, another would take the controller and you would have to wait until it was your turn again.

However, I realized that there was a big difference between playing the arcade mode and the battle mode. For an example I was once stuck on a certain level, unable to beat the boss. My brother decided to try and choose another character. Once the battle started, he did nothing but make the character kick the opponent. And he won. After that we found out that by repeating the same kicking action, winning was fairly easy, which soon created a problem.

When we were battling each other this advantage or cheat in the game was deemed exactly that – a cheat – by us. Therefore, we soon agreed that such moves were illegal in battle. They were still practiced in arcade mode, but when playing against others it was considered a cheat. If you were to perform such moves anyway, nobody would want to play with you.

This shows that there was a clear distinction between what was considered a legal move in arcade mode and what was legal in multiplayer battle.

So cheating depends on who you are playing against; a person or a machine.

Beyond: two souls – New ways of interacting

Jodie is a special girl. She is connected to a ghost named Aiden. They have been linked since her birth. This has brought her to a military base where she lives with her foster parents. Jodie’s psychic connection to Aiden enables her to communicate with him and perform telepathic acts, such as manipulating certain objects and possessing peoples’ minds. As the story of the game progress, Jodie becomes a CIA agent using Aiden for missions and what not.

Jodie and Aiden’s story is not chronologically told. You are to play different scenes of her life, slowly piecing her life together. As an agent and psychic person, Jodie travels all over the world during the 20 years of her life you are able to play. She is in desert and snow landscapes, trying to survive or fulfill a mission. The long time span and the many places gives a very diverse experience for the player, playing a little girl and a grown woman. Furthermore, the player controls both Jodie and Aiden, changing between them by pressing a button.

Beyond: two souls is an action adventure game. The player mostly controls Jodie who can interact with other characters and objects in the scenes. These objects are marked with a white dot on the screen. For one to interact with them it is demanded that the player move the control stick in the direction that seems most natural for the interaction. When playing as Aiden the player cannot see him but they are able to float through walls and ceilings. Interactive objects are highlighted by a shining aura of color. The color determining the possible action.

The interaction possibilities in the game are very subtly done. The small dots prompts the player to figure out the interaction for themselves instead of a standard button press. Furthermore, the fight scenes in the game demands the player to pay close attention to Jodie’s movements. The picture moves into slow motion whilst Jodie perform the action. During that time the player must be able to determine the direction of Jodie’s movement and move the control stick accordingly.

This is another way of presenting on screen interaction to the player, and who knows maybe a look into future interaction. 

Flowers

The flowers game is not about points, winning and beating others. It’s a game about exploring and healing a broken world. You play as a petal from a lonely flower. You then proceed to soar through the wind touching other flowers and thereby gaining more petals. The further you get the more petals gather, creating a cloud of them. Each flower is distinct in color and sound. Once you have touched all in a place the spot will heal. Giving back color and life to the grass, trees and stone there.

The goal is simple; help save the world. Not by killing or constructing things but by healing the nature around us.

You control the petals in the wind by shaking and shifting your controller and not by any buttons. Everything is simple. One sound and one color per flower. You are slowly getting to know the difference between them. You sail through the sky, feeling like you are a part of nature. There is no dialog or text in the game; it forms a narrative from the visual presentation and the emotional cues.

The game Flowers was never meant to challenge players, but it intends to arouse positive emotions. The game design is simple, where all game mechanics that did not suit the intention were removed. The game was a critical success and was named the “best independent game of 2009” and the “casual game of the Year”. It was called a unique and compelling emotional experience by reviewers.

I found the game beautiful and engaging. You could do no wrong, just play. It was nice and free play. It felt like I was playing and feeling true freedom. The game was so simple yet able to portray such complicated emotions. The visuals were also beautiful, rid of violence and death. This was life and healing.

Sucking at video console gaming…

… is something I’m extremely good at. While I wasn’t born with this gift, I do believe it is something I’ve always been destined for. Video game consoles were a rare sight during my childhood in the 90s and early 00s: my family didn’t have one, my friends didn’t have one, and our neighbors didn’t have one. The few encounters I had had with one were when visiting family friends, and even then, I rarely did anything but observe. So naturally, I was excited when my family acquired a PlayStation 2 during my tween years, however, it didn’t take long to realize that the vast amount of time that I had already spent on playing computer games had made me accustomed to point-and-click controls. Shockwaves from my immense failure to grasp the console controls could be felt worldwide, and by even failing at games that require minimal motor skill to succeed, such as Tekken 5 and SSX 3, I found my true calling as that one person who really blows at video console gaming. I am the morale booster to the player who thinks they’re terrible but who don’t yet know that I’m even worse; I am the co-player that you wouldn’t wish upon your worst enemy to end up with for Pair Play in Tekken Tag Tournament 2; I am the girl who sucks at video console gaming.

Sucking on the teats of the Homestuck cow

Homestuck is a story about four internet friends, who engage in the computer game, Sburb, through which their world is changed. Sburb is not merely a digital game, as they find themselves playing as either server or client players in “real life”. The comic reads as if Homestuck itself is a game, and the reader is the player. The reader does not have any influence on the storyline, however the links that the reader clicks to proceed in the story are made to look like game commands, such as "> Enter name.", taking inspiration from classic adventure games. Homestuck also incorporates several types of media, including text, pictures, animations, sound, and mini-games. Due to its popularity, Andrew Hussie, the creator of Homestuck, is now working on an actual adventure game called Hiveswap, which is set in the Homestuck universe. So Hiveswap is basically a game based on Homestuck, which is a comic that reads as a game about the game Sburb while also incorporating mini-games as a narrative tool.

While this might seem as the beautiful lovechild of hypermedia and crossmedia, it does also seem a bit like milking that one magical cow that apparently possesses an infinity udder that never runs dry, and one can fear that once Hiveswap is released another comic will float to the surface and tell the story about people playing the game – this time with more elaborate in-comic games – followed by another digital game that is set in the universe of the comic, and this pattern will repeat itself until the ultimate culmination with the launch of the digital game Sburb: The Beginning.

We don’t talk about my past at family gatherings

I used to be a murderer. On a casual Thursday, I’d kill an entire household. I’d starve them, incinerate them, electrocute them, or drown them. While starvation was the cheapest alternative, drowning was the neatest: no burnt furniture or puddles of pee to clean up afterwards. But I must say, incineration was for me the most fun, and was easily achieved by forcing a member of the household to light fireworks inside near a houseplant.

It might be a bit sadistic, but it’s not as sadistic as it sounds: I am of course talking about killing Sims in The Sims. And remember, all the vicious acts of homicide mentioned in the previous paragraph are written in past tense. I don’t do it anymore. I am a changed person. I have played The Sims 2, The Sims 3, and The Sims 4. “How does this change your sick ideas of fun?” you might ask. Well, in the three latest games, Sims age. By default, my Sims no longer live forever, but instead approximately 90 in-game days. They’re not in a permanent state of either child or adult – they have life stages: baby, toddler, child, teen, young adult, adult, and elder. My Sims are no longer digital dolls that won’t die unless I do something horrible to them – they’ll die all by themselves. And for no other apparent reason, I now want the best for them: I want to see them thrive and fulfill their simulated lives. The implementation of certain death has changed the way I play the game, and where death in the first game seemed necessary, forcing death upon my Sims in the newer games seem excessive and almost cruel – they Sims are going to die anyway, why would I want to capture them in a closed room filled with dirty dishes and wait for the Sims to die from the sheer amount of flies? The old me would have answered “because of fun”, but the new me feels that the extra touch of realness to the simulation has given me conflicting feelings towards behaving like a homicidal madman in the game.

Memoirs of an addict

I own every base game of the The Sims franchise for PC, and I have also bought several expansions for each game (with the exception of The Sims 2 (2004), because it caused my computer to crash into a horrible and untimely death back in 2005). But why? Why do I keep buying new base games, when I know there’s going to be a shit ton of expansion packs to further purchase? And why do I even buy the expansion packs?

Well, The Sims (2000) turned out to be somewhat of a gateway drug for me. I got a hold of the game in the first place, because my brother borrowed a bunch of games from a friend, with one of these games being The Sims. Said friend has never received their copy back, and it’s now been so long that neither my brother nor I can remember which friend it actually was. I found the game quite entertaining, so when I saw the expansion packs Livin’ Large and House Party at my local electronics shop, it was indeed the beginning of my downfall. I later bought Hot Date, Vacation, Superstar, and Makin’ Magic, and “acquired” Unleashed through mysterious ways. Why did I do it? Because all of a sudden, my Sims could dance in a neon cage, go on dates at restaurants where they serve the same food as the one you get from the fridge, take acid baths at the spa, and have pets! How amazing, right?

Then came The Sims 2, which I had already mentally bought by the time I had finished watching the mind-blowing trailer for it (made out of 100% “Not actual gameplay” footage and animations). Now my Sims had FINGERS – as in ten of them! And also, they could age! Babies were no longer a pastel green cradle with daisies and sunbeams bursting from it, nor did they magically transition from cradles to children (who might not resemble either of their parents) – Sims now had the life stages: baby, toddler, child, teen, (young adult), adult, and elder, and genetics determined the child’s looks. How awesome. Or at least it was for those six months that I could actually play the game (which I did until my eyes went numb. Being able to play out a Sim’s entire lifetime was a fantastic way to spend ten hours a day. No more jumping in and out of games just for shits and giggles, if my Sim was two days away from becoming an elder, I’d keep playing until it happened. And then, because I was on a roll, I’d keep playing until that Sim died of old age. And then I’d concentrate on one of the mourning household members. And can you see how this turned into an evil circle of simulated life and death (which unfortunately isn’t the title of a magnificent song about antelopes and lions sung by an emotional Elton John)) before by computer died the most horrible death of all: Death by Sims.

Salty from my past experience of computer doom, I took my precautions with The Sims 3 (2009): I was only going to buy the base game. I told myself I didn’t need expansions, because after all, I had gone four years without playing the game, so the base game in itself should be enough. The base game for The Sims 3 gave me what I’d longed for since the first game: an open world. No longer was I restricted to either my home lot or a community lot – my Sims could now ride their bikes to their friend’s house! And the Create-a-Sim tool was even more powerful than the one in the previous games: I could customize my Sims and their homes to my heart’s desire. I was quite content with the game. For a while. The expansion pack, World Adventures, came out first, but I had made my decision: I wasn’t buying any expansion packs for this game, even if this expansion featured Asian styles and items that would make customizing my look-a-like Sim so much easier, with me being Asian. But no. Not this time. No expansions! But then came Ambitions. By 2010 I had grown tired of the styling options in the base game: My Sims started to look the same, and my houses were decorated with the same furniture. The novelty of the new game mechanics had worn off, and I was bored. So I bought the expansion. The addict that I am fell into immediate relapse after my first fix, and I then not only continued to buy the expansions Late Night, Generations, Pets, and Showtime, I also leeched on a loved one (my cousin), who had the expansions Seasons and University Life, to feed my ugly addiction. And why? So I could sit for hours on end and watch a bunch of simulated people go to poorly designed clubs, play with their pets, disappear into rabbit hole film studios, and have snowball fights. It’s sick. But also incredibly entertaining for a megalomaniac voyeur like me.

All the base games have given me features I’ve wanted: The Sims was an introduction to a new type of game, The Sims 2 introduced aging and genetics, and The Sims 3 introduced open world and customization. But if the base games were so good, why did I buy the expansion packs? Because the expansion packs allow me to explore a familiar part of real life in a game of simulated life. Just like with the board game Settlers of Catan: You can get by with playing the base game, but it’s just so much more fun playing with the expansions. And somewhere there’s a game researcher who’s laughing their butt off at the irony of my unhealthy purchasing patterns of a game that is based on consumerism.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to Rage Quitting

In an attempt to do a bit of research on text-based adventure games, I started playing the online version of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Knowing the story, I thought it’d be fun. Which it was. The first fifty tries.

I never managed to make it past the intro scenario in which my house was bulldozed and I unfortunately always died – it took me at least ten futile attempts before I successfully managed to get out of the room before the house collapsed. The game supposedly offers a save and restore function, however I was not able to get this function to work (again, several futile, painful, and emotionally distressing attempts), and every death was therefore permanent, resetting the game with all progress lost. So when I died quite suddenly after having had an otherwise cheerful moment of mini-celebration because I had gotten to the point in the story where you meet Ford Prefect (which I am embarrassed to admit is far too early in the story), I quit.

Later on, I found a well-hidden info sheet with useful commands, but alas, I was far too agitated to take up the game again. But someday. Someday, I’ll complete the game and get a score of 400 instead of 10 which is my sad excuse for a personal high score. Because if there’s one thing that’s particularly unsatisfying, it’s rage quitting a game that you still kind of want to complete, and even more unsatisfying is rage quitting a game that you think you know the plot of because you once saw a movie based on the same story, but you can’t be entirely sure as you haven’t completed the game.

I’ll leave you with the beautiful words of Nickelback: “Someday, somehow I'm gonna make it all right but not right now”.

The game can be played online here and here (with fancy graphics).

E-sports and spectatorship: Epic heroes and villains in football

I had an idea during the lecture on e-sports and spectatorship. As a person who watches a lot of football, I am very focussed on something emotional around the game and I think it involves some sort of narrative or “story” that my fellow spectators and I create around the game when we watch it and talk about it. I could explain it with one of Roger Caillois’s (2001) types of play, mimicry. In watching football me and my friends create characters and epic stories about much more than just being more able to kick a ball into a goal. I do not read much about football players’ personal life because to me it is not of importance. Of cause we have bad guys too. In my case, my heroes are Barcelona, a team of brave and kind men with the protagonist Messi in lead, against the villains, Real Madrid - whom my friends and I are applying archetypal villain trades like greed and coldheartedness. I can tell these are fictional stories and narratives that we, the spectators, are creating collectively in fan groups, because, whereas Barcelona fans views Ronaldo, the key forward of Real Madrid, as a hysterical and childish person, fans of Real Madrid consider him an honorable and hardworking character. It would be interesting to research more on the stories we as spectators are wrapping around a certain sport and its athletes.

Caillois, Roger. Man, play, and games. University of Illinois Press, 2001.

Social Norms: Virtual racism ≠ simulated racism

Virtual racism can be two very different things as far as I am concerned and it is significant to treat racism in games differently. As it is with Chinese gold farmers in Lineage l/ll, it might become damaging and it might just be a racist "mechanic" of the game, where those designing the game have been unaware of the problem - but presenting racism in a game in an active and critical way, to me, is beautiful and relevant. When game designers simulate racism, they force players to consider it.

I think an example of a beautiful build-in racist system is how Skyrim is portraying the lives of the "beats race" or Khajiit, the humanoid cat. This particular race was enslaved and oppressed by the rich families before it became illegal to “domesticate Khajiits” but they are still affected by their history and they are still viewed as second class citizens. They experience racial slurs (cats, carpets, rugs) and they are held in severe poverty because of their public image. Sound familiar?

If choosing to play as a Khajiit, the player will experience prejudice and troubles related to its race and that gives Skyrim a critical viewpoint on “actual” racism. Playing an oppressed race might just make players more critical in real life:

"A lot of Khajiit resort to smuggling and thievery to get by. A few bad apples spoil the bunch. You know how it is." (Ysolda (Khajiit) in Skyrim)

(Picture from: Elderscrolls Wiki)

Form and Order: What I learned about console controllers from users

We discussed gaming console controllers and how they are being ignored by game scholars and often overlooked. This puzzles me. Obviously it is difficult to pinpoint in gameplay what controllers do, but I think it is important to talk about.

I worked for Microsoft until last year where I represented them in electronic stores and demonstrated their products and guided and I remember how controllers meant the world for the choice of console. It really was an important part of their play experience and it was, for many, what made them buy a particular console. Because let us face it - Sony Playstation and Microsoft Xbox are not that different - they are game consoles, playing games, like dvd-players play movies. Now, as it is with dvd-players and game consoles, the screen is important, the chair you sit on is important, who is with you is important and - how do you know - something very important is physically present as well when it comes to games: The controller!

As far as I got to know in my everyday life as a Microsoft employee, there was no such thing as a "purely intuitive" (something everyone, being human beings, from the day we are born, can use as if it is the most natural thing) - no, the intuitive element lay in what the gamers were used to. What they had learned. I experienced how Playstation users considered the Xbox controllers to be clunky and they did not like, that they from one position could not reach all buttons. Xbox players, on the other hand, found Playstation controllers fragile and "puny" and they did not like the "standard position" as it is more "horizontal" (like a hand weapon) than the Xbox controllers (that I would more say resembles a car steering wheel).

(picture from: Brian Recktenwald) 

Aesthetics: Movies look like games that look like movies

Today I noted how computer games, in aesthetics, might have been influenced by movie theory and how movies are made interesting or compelling. The usage of different types of color grading, ”casting” of protagonists (example: Master Chief of Halo), camera movements and framing (birds-, humans- or worms eye view) of games use the same language as movies do. It is not unusual to be presented with a typical ”establishing shot” with typewriting, stating where and when you are located.  It also reminds me of all the times I am being aware that there is a cutscene as soon as my screen fades two black bars in, making it widescreen, to tell me, that a certain ”movie” will be shown where I won’t be able to act or play.

Now, while this is interesting, it made me consider how games have become more popular and mainstream and maybe this could well be an argument for something I mentioned in class: Games are now influencing movies and has done this for a while. An example could be Kill Bill (2003). The fight scenes looks like they are highly influenced by fighting games (example: Street Fighter)

The Matrix (1999) with its loading screens, indicating a change of level or scenery with the aesthetics of a computer game.  

The first person view in the newest Iron Man movies (2008), where we are perfectly able to understand the change of viewpoint and we understand the concepts of his interface in his helmet - maybe because of games?

It would be interesting to, though a bit narrow, research the progression of James Bond movies and how the aesthetics might have changed towards a more game-like product. The interesting discussion would be found in whether a rotating car, being presented, is something movies invented for car racing games to adapt or if it is a feature found in car racing games, that movies have embraced.

Technology and Politics: The SCOT analysis

Today in lecture, the correlation between users and technology in socio-political context was discussed as how they affect each other. I am not sure whether or not to talk about Design Archeology as a method or as a theoretical framework for research, but nonetheless it is interesting to discuss which one affects which. The chicken or the egg?

Looking at intentions, conditions of usage et cetera reminded me of one particular method, that fall into the category of Design Archeology: The SCOT analysis (Bijker, 2012).

Now, this method is looking at relevant social groups, being very social constructivist in its views on how development in technology takes place - but I wish it would take into consideration how the relevant social groups came to be. I think it is important to note how technology is not created in a vacuum. The bike, as Bijker (2012) uses as an example might have an impact on, how we perceive two wheeled transportation - being influential in the creation of the motorbike and the motorbike might just have an impact on how we perceive masculinity or something else and so creation upon creation is continuously influencing our future.

Bijker, Wiebe E., et al. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT press, 2012.

Sociability and Video Games

I used to enjoy sitting in a room and watching someone else play a video game. I've now lived with another gamer for more than two years, and every time he gets a new game and starts playing it, I completely lose interest in playing it myself. Even when I kinda want to, initially. Maybe it's the way he plays. He has a pretty systematic approach to it. Like he's crossing off points on a checklist. Always doing all of the side-missions, getting all of the trophies. Silently. Concentrated. Killing the game. Multiplayer, too.

I think I've developed the same attitude toward games as I have had toward films for a long time now. That it's more enjoyable if I watch it with someone who can really get into it. Or alone at 3 a.m. on one of those insomniac nights when the TV is just on to soften the noise from a neighbor's party. There's always at least one good and weird film on in the deadest part of the night. For instance, I just re-watched Léon and that weird film with the guys and the banjo duel.

Anyway, my point is that all the games I've loved in the recent years have sort of popped up in my face from out of nowhere. And all the unmentionables have been everywhere. And I'm not saying this because I think unpopular games are necessarily better than popular ones or the ones that are produced by companies who can afford million- or billion dollar ads. I'm saying I think it probably matters how games are introduced. At least to me.

Spyro the Dragon and Crash Bandicoot. These are the first games I played on the PlayStation I got on my (probably) 8th birthday. I had never seen or played anything like them, since the only games at school were 2D Nintendo games and the only games at home were Wolfenstein 3D and Solitaire. Kids took turns at school playing, and I was only ever allowed by the others to play the first level, hoarding lives. Solitaire is a game I associate with my mother, since she'd always play cards on the computer in the room when I'd gone to bed. (We only had one room at the time.) Lights off, computer on. Click. Click. Click-click. Drowsing off... click. Wolfenstein was for the daytime, on the weekends, when I could convince her to boot it up on her way too old Windows 92 PC, which had been bought second-hand, probably twice over. I'd watch her gun down Nazi's and cuss like a construction worker. Apart from helping out with the groceries sometimes, that's the only social thing I ever did with my mother. She was always at meetings, or tired. So tired. And I was 8.

I loved both my games to bits. It didn't matter that the PlayStation was stolen and chipped and that the two games were pirated copies in old CD cases. It was all my mother could afford, and it was a huge surprise. I'd just started reading a lot, since reading was something I could do independently. These games meant freedom to me in much the same way. Thanks to them, I didn't need to wait for my turn, or for my parent to be home and awake. I just needed me and the game, and I could always rely on having both. Well, not at school. But that's what books were for.

When I saw a copy of Final Fantasy IX in a toy store, it was also completely new to me. Not just the series, or the Japanese art style. I had never gotten a "new" or "real" game before. A legit non-pirated one. We just didn't have that kind of money. So when my mother somehow bought it anyhow, I cherished that thing like it was the guardian of my ancestors. I've dropped it many times, the cover is in pieces and taped together, the third CD doesn't play beyond a certain cutscene right before the change to disc 4, but I love it. It's the only thing I still have from back then.

I remember everything from the first time I played it. It was 16 years ago, and I could draw you the room. And I sat there until my mother had to tell me again for the third time that it's time to sleep. School night. I couldn't sleep, though. I'd just found out that Vivi was one of those robots.

I never lost any sleep over Assassin's Creed. I like the games, sure. But I love Journey. And Grim Fandango. And Catherine. You can play these games systematically, but that's not the point of them. It's like going to the cinema and someone keeps talking while the film is playing. Or analyzing and discussing your favorite book in school or at university. It kills the love.

I don't really know if people who play very social games like WoW, or people who play very competitive games like LoL, or people who hunt trophies in all the big AAA titles… if they feel the way I do about games. To me, a game isn't really good, emotionally or intellectually, before  it stays in my brain and makes me think that it's all worth it somehow. That what I'm feeling isn't clever design or snazzy mechanics, but something important and real. That my love is just, and not forced just because I spent some money. You can't tell me who or what to love.

I rarely enjoy watching someone play games anymore. Maybe that's because it's the wrong way to play. I prefer freedom.