Pseudo-Week Two

Digital Vs. Non-Digital Games

With table-top games, they are primarily turn-based and require elements of fantasy and drama (such as luck and chance – randomosity) to make them work. A strict set of rules that determine action-time, that is, the idea of turns instead of everyone taking a turn at once and creating chaos (inevitably), generally govern such games. It is also in this type of game that you have the easiest time of actually cheating.

Live-action games are played in real-time, and are much more physical. The natural laws of physics determine a lot of the gameplay here. They are also affected by a number of components; the player’s physical and mental ability, the opposition’s abilities, the environment, and the weather, in addition to the normal rules of the game. These games also run a more significant risk of personal injury than most other game-types. Here, just as in table-top games, there is a greater role of randomosity – results can vary dramatically, based on each component of the game and its players and surroundings.

Computer games, on the other hand, are not restricted to the laws of physics at all, and indeed a good number of them seek to defy physics in particular; it can be part of the fun of that particular game. These games have less chance of being random, as a lot of the gameplay, outcomes and responses are all designated, designed, by the creator of the game itself. Visually, these games can play a greater role in fantasy and drama, can be social or played by one’s self.

Take soccer as an example of a game across the mediums. This game is pretty much self-evident in live-action games – two teams of eleven players, each playing to the same set of rules, however each with different player abilities, and with both being affected by the conditions around them. It can also be much faster than the other versions of the game.

In a table-top version of this game, it would generally be limited to about a two-player game. Many more players, and the game would simply become to unwieldly and chaotic to play. It might be played with tokens and altered rules, on a similar board to chess, or more like a foosball table, in which the player’s physical ability in manipulation of the ‘players’ and ball still plays a role.

In a computer/video game version, the game changes dramatically. It becomes barely physical at all, aside from the mashing of buttons – and the players on-screen are determined by how exactly those buttons are mashed. The outcome of the game is primarily driven by the algorithms behind the game and how well the actual player adheres to them. The game would also be slowed down dramatically, waiting for the player to enter codes to enable gameplay, etc., reaction shots and that sort of thing.

Design Idea: The Dogma Manifesto.

I was immediately familiar with this topic, as it has come up in a number of my previous Media and Film Studies courses, and I have always found the Dogme95 Manifesto fascinating. While it may be fun to explore what new technologies can do in a medium (the CG robots in the first Transformers movie), these techniques are often over-saturated in a very short time – generally after everyone else but the country bumpkin has jumped on the bandwagon once the first ‘pioneer’ of said technique (not that I am calling Transformers a pioneer, might I add) has proven successful and profitable. The technique, style, character-type, technology – the Idea grows old and tired fast.

You might have noticed that vampires are the ‘in’ thing right now. Unless you’re living under a rock – and even then, I’m sure Edward Cullen dazzles you.

Ahem.

So it comes as little surprise that there is a similar manifesto for the games industry, perhaps just as ignored and unloved en masse, as the Dogme95 one. Personally, I find the Dogma 2001 (and I almost typed ‘Space Odyssey’ there XD) to be a lot more restrictive than its filmic counterpart. This might just be because I am personally a fan of (and prefer) the immersive RPG-style of gaming, which seems all but forbidden by this manifesto, whereas the style of film Dogme95 calls for is something I could enjoy for itself. Of course, that’s not to say I wouldn’t enjoy the games that would come as a result of Dogma 2001; just that I find its call more restrictive, despite its claims.

In any case, Dogma 2001 has its selling points and its retractors. Firstly, I have to agree on points eight and nine. In point Eight, the Dogma 2001 Manifesto states that ‘There may be victory and defeat, and my side and their side, but there may not be Good and Evil.’ – I dislike strict terms of ‘black and white – good and evil’. I think the most interesting games, ideally, are those that deal in shades of grey – where characters are not one or the other, both or neither, and make the player question each aspect of the opposition’s and their own actions.

Nine, I agree with more strongly. I like stories, and stories within games. Random can be fun at times, but it can be, and usually is, ridiculous. Realistic gameplay – logic – within the guidelines and abilities you have been given shouldn’t be too much to ask for in a game.

Really, those are the only two points on which I can agree with in the manifesto. On the other points, I’d have to disagree, because for a majority of them, it seems that just because there have been a lot of games who have used these elements poorly, means that everybody loses out on them when I still think that in the right hands, they can be used creatively and innovatively – which is something that I thought was one of the main appeals of trying new games – innovation.

Also, I’d just like to point out that I think the last point in particular is ridiculous. Black = cool = bad? Ridiculous. Using black in a game can be most effective emotionally – it stems from the fact that what we can’t see can be more intense than what we can, because possibility, imagination and the unknown can scare or thrill us more effectively than things that are visibly and solidly defined for us. Just to avoid it because of a general social connotation that not everyone agrees upon? It seems tremendously idiotic.

Game Idea

Might get back to you on that one. XD

Pseudo-Week One

This post was a long time coming. Sadly, it is doubtful that the additional timeframe has in anyway influenced or enhanced the contents forthwith.

To answer the initial question – that is, ‘Why are you here?’ – well, defining ‘here’ would be the essential part.

‘Here’ on WordPress?

Answer: The cool kids were doing it.

‘Here’ on a blog in general?

Answer: Some random person keeps hounding me for blog entries. Apparently its a requirement for the course. Shoot.

‘Here’ as in Comp4431? (Okay, so I caved. There were a number more ‘here’ references I could make. Feel grateful, plebeian, that I decided to show mercy – such as it is.)

Answer: I struggle on the answer to this, simply because I wanted to avoid the typical ‘It looked fun’ in reply. I’ve always tried to pick subjects that interest and entertain me, ones that I know I’ll be able to pay attention in and actually get something out of it (sadly that decision making failed me with Intro to Marketing this semester). I tend to have a rather large problem with procrastination (“No,” I hear you say, “You must be joking!”) but if the subject can hold my interest then that’s half the battle won. I’ve always had a particular fondness for games of all types, as they are usually my main weapon in the War of Procrastination, and I generally become quite immersed in them before realising that 6 hours have passed.

I still remember playing my first console game, Tom and Jerry, on NES back in the day, with The Simpsons soon to follow. I have fond memories of playing Sonic the Hedgehog on Sega, of playing Pokemon Blue, and Red, on Gameboy, before selling that Gameboy on eBay to afford a Gameboy Advanced and Pokemon Yellow thereafter (with possibly a little additional support from the ‘rents). Then there was the Nintendo 64, the Playstation, the Playstation 2, the Wii, the Nintendo DS – the list goes on. I’ve played video games for as long as I can remember, although funnily enough I rarely ever played them on the computer (does an addiction to Minesweeper count?).

Of course, there is also the fact that my course for Media & Comm comes to an end mid-way next year, and I still have yet to decide on what exactly I want to do after uni (and whether I’ll actually be employable with what this course has given me so far, I’ll admit), and this course seemed like a good stepping stone if I decided to follow the game/design/animation route that I’ve been eyeing off and on for quite some time, because it could at least give me a taste of what it would be like, and also if I have any hope in this area.

Plus? It looked fun.

Gun-related Morsel;

Gun-orientated games are so popular, in my opinion, because they occur in arena that is without virtual consequence. These games allow people to play out base-desires; the desire to hurt, maim and kill the ‘Other’ – the Enemy – be it aliens, monsters, or a stand-in for someone in racial-opposition without the social ramifications that would occur in the ‘real world’ where these desires are considered, for the most part, socially and morally abhorrent.

In these games, people play the ‘Hero’ – they shoot, kill and subsequently stop the Enemy, and protect themselves, others like them, fellow citizens, the country, the world  - the Good Guys. Here, there is no consequence for shooting another person; in fact, it usually gains you rewards. There is no jail-time, no repercussions, no social stigma – these are not real people. In these games, people do not feel guilt or horror at the taking of ‘life’. In fact, they revel in it. Usually within these games, not killing someone has more repercussions than if you actually do, including the loss of your own ‘life’. Of course, that doesn’t matter – you can just go start again from your latest save point.

These games provide both the arena and the medium for playing out desires and instincts that are otherwise socially unacceptable. They generally paint things in terms of black and white, Good and Evil, whereby the player is on the side of Good, and must take out Evil in the most graphic (and potentially cathartic) way possible.

So ends the first episode of this blog. I guess its rather unfortunate for any of you who do stumble across my corner of the blog-osphere – the ramblings here are ridiculous. Oh well. In any case, tune in next time to Pseudo-Week.

- Kacie.