I think it's kind of a loaded question (no pun intended) to ask a question like this when actual scientific researchers can hardly agree on a consensus about what the correlation between these things. It's interesting though, that one of the articles mentioned the idea of "moral panic" because I recently learned all about this in my Gender and Pop Culture class. The idea of moral panic is based off of 3, maybe 4 stages:
The issue often comes up whenever a mass shooting occurs. More often than not, investigators will find that the perpetrator were huge fans of violent, first-person shooter video games. Instead of focusing on the more pressing issue, they divert attention to video games as a scapegoat. The media latches on to this and perpetuates the ideas to the general public via news channels, as well as celebrities. Since our current president is both a political figure and a celebrity, he does both by stating his opinion on this apparent correlation without facts to back up his talk. Nevertheless, he convinces the masses. This induces a moral panic, causing people to believe this because they think that they can just trust what the president says. Then we've got backlash, people calling for stricter video game regulation and also, obviously, better gun control laws. That all being said, the issue is really complex, and like one of the articles mentioned, the cause for the vast amount of mass shootings that occurs in the United States cannot be explained away with the words "because violent video games". I think regulating video games could be advantageous in the long run, but I also think that if the current ESRB system was just enforced more heavily, it would do a lot to at least reduce the exposure to active audiences participating in violent actions via video games. I don't really know what you mean by whether games are a symptom, cause, or cure for social ills. Maybe a symptom, if I'm understanding the question right? I think video games can be a good outlet for aggression and that sort of thing, but I've also played games and gotten pissed off as a result of them. I think part of the reason they're popular is the same way why books are popular. They allow you to escape the real world for a little while and to explore something beyond yourself. I don't know if that makes it fall under a symptom, but I think that's how they relate to "social ills".
0 Comments
If I'm going to be totally honest, I really don't understand eSports and competitive video gaming (or I mean, I don't really understand the appeal). That's cool if other people want to spend their time being professional gamers and play video games for 10 hours a day, or be casual gamers who end up being really good and competing in eSports tournaments, but I could never see myself doing it, so I can't see myself being a competitor or spectator. One of the articles mentioned Twitch, and I literally had not heard of that until my roommate told me that her boyfriend made her follow him on it for 10 cents or something. She didn't really get it, either, but did it to support him without really thinking twice about it. I didn't really think about it, either, because I didn't care to explore more about some world of live-streaming video game play for the purpose of showing others what's happening.
Turns out they have entire competitions and pack literal stadiums better than some professional football teams do with people who want to watch other people play video games. I guess in a weird ways it's kind of similar to watching actual people play real sports when they're playing games based on real sports. When it's watching shooting or fighting games, it's kind of like watching ... a movie? With lots of yelling and quick speaking that don't really make sense to the average person who doesn't play video games. I guess if you're into that sort of thing, that could be fun. I can see how being around a whole stadium of people who all like the same thing as you would be fun because that's basically how sports work. However, I just can't get behind watching gamers play games. I guess I just don't take it as seriously. I don't really take real sports as seriously, either, though I do often get emotionally invested in Seahawks games. That all being said, I'm neither a competitor nor spectator, so I don't know what more to say about that question. I can see eSports that follow actual sports (like FIFA) reaching the level of an Olympic event, but I'd never watch it. I can't, however, see something like Halo or another game where the objective is to literally kill people being recognized at an Olympic level. Like the president of the International Olympics Committee said, “We want to promote non-discrimination, non-violence, and peace among people. This doesn’t match with video games, which are about violence, explosions and killing.” So I don't think that those video games will make it. However, I also feel like Olympic athletes could potentially be bitter about a virtual version of the sport they play being considered an Olympic sport. If I were in the position, I'd feel like it was cheating, so I wonder if that would serve as a blocking for eSports to reach the Olympic level. I think it will be interesting to see how it plays out, especially after the semi-coordination between the Intel Extreme Masters Pyeongchang and the Winter Olympic Games. I do think there's still a charm to arcades. After visiting Strikes and Spares, Melina and I had a ton of fun getting tickets and traded them in for a couple of wind up cars for 85 tickets a piece. Thankfully, we only spent $5, but that number could have easily skyrocketed if we had stayed for longer. That being said, though I think there's still a charm to arcades, I can see how they can very easily be overrun by PC, console, and mobile games given the ease of accessibility and cheap (or "free"ness) of these games. As opposed to paying a lot of money to play a game at an arcade for a few minutes, I could sit at home and pick up my phone or laptop and boot up a game in a fraction of the time for 0% of the price. I would say that 99% of the time, I'm going to pick playing a free game.
It was interesting to look at the array of games available at the Strikes and Spares' arcade. Perhaps it was because it probably isn't considered a "true" arcade, but many of the games there weren't classic arcade games. There was a giant version of Crossy Roads that you could only "tap" to move forward (as opposed to moving backwards, left, and right, like in the mobile version of the game). There was also a rendition of a type of Piano Keys game where you smack giant key-looking things in time with the screen. It was sort of like whack-a-mole. I also saw Mario Kart, a version of ski ball, and a couple other coin dozer type of games. I think there was one game that was like Galactica (or maybe it was Galactica?), but other than that, I didn't really see a lot of classic arcade games. I think these environments fit into the gaming ecosystem of people chasing a sort of nostalgia they don't think they can get from playing games like these (classic arcade games, i.e. Pacman, Galaga, DK, other games from the Golden Age of Video Games) online with a keyboard. Perhaps they like the feel of the joystick or the largeness of the screen. Perhaps they like to be surrounded by people who enjoy the same things they do. However, I don't think that with the next generation of kids growing up on games they can play on their phones, iPads, and video game consoles, that this industry will last for much longer. Sure, a few arcades in larger cities with higher populations (or I guess even tiny towns where the culture could persist) may keep their doors open, but realistically, I don't think that that many will survive the next century. That's a pretty sad to think about. It'd be an end of the era, but for now, we still have some arcades open! However, as their customer base declines, the cost increases. It cost a $1.20 each for Melina and I to play the piano game, but we could play that for free on our phones. It's just kind of crazy to think about. Being a casual gamer who almost exclusively plays mobile games, I don’t really see the growth of casual and social gaming attributed to mobile gaming as a negative phenomenon (though I wouldn’t really say it’s positive, either). I think it’s great that one can reach more audiences through mobile gaming and that games like Candy Crush or Angry Birds can be enjoyed by people of all ages. I also think it’s great that these games are easily accessible and don’t require another console or a laptop/computer to play. It’s also pretty sweet that pretty much anyone could make a game if they wanted since they don’t have to jump through a bunch of hoops and have a lot of hardware/software in order to create a game. I mean, I guess it sucks for the PC and console markets are being surpassed as far as revenue goes, but let’s be honest: that happens to pretty much everything that depends on consumers to survive. If you want to keep up with the market, you have to adapt. Things do not stay the same forever. If you don’t want to go obsolete, keep up with the trends. I understand that it’s easier said than done, but that’s just the truth. If your audience isn’t interested in paying for your product, then you’re out of luck. It isn’t anyone’s fault that that’s happening, so I don’t see it as being positive or negative. If anything, it’d be positive since we can have more creative minds working on projects, even from their own basements, without having to work for companies that are required to partner with consoles because of limitations (what I mean is, a person can’t just develop a game for a Nintendo console and deploy it; they would need to talk to Nintendo, make sure their game is cool, and get the go ahead from there). Now that they can bypass this by just launching directly to App Stores, we’ve got games galore. As far as business models like free-to-play and micro-transactions goes, I don’t think that is it debasing this form of entertainment. Like I’ve said before, the way that gaming is being developed and marketed is changing. Since we aren’t restricted to consoles and PCs, developers can launch their games to the App Store for an annual fee (about $100 a year, I think?) However, if these apps are being launched and can be downloaded for free, then it’s kind of hard to expect these people to just create and maintain these games and not expect any revenue in return. Either they can have advertisements, or they can have in-game transactions (and sometimes, often times, both). I don’t really see a problem with it. As opposed to having to play anywhere from $40 to $60 a game for traditional consoles, to pay a nominal fee to get advantages in these kinds of games seems small (but I suppose it does add up). As for me, I don’t really ever do in-app purchases. Occasionally I’ll pay a couple dollars to download a “paid game”, but other than that, I typically avoid spending real money on any of my apps. I’m the type to get really into a game for like, a week, max, and get super bored of it, so if I were to pay money to play these games, it’d end up being a waste, in the end. My attention span diminishes pretty quickly. I read somewhere that the majority of players (I can’t remember the exact percentage but it was pretty high) do not continue to play the same games for longer than 27 days. I’m definitely one of those people. It’s a miracle that I still play Candy Crush sometimes. That being said, I’m not opposed to developers utilizing these sorts of business models because you gotta make money somehow. // I played Candy Crush and Cooking Dash in between writing sentences for this blog post, so I obvious really like mobile games. Here are a couple of screenshots: I’m currently on level 420 (ha ha blaze it) of Candy Crush Soda (the superior version of Candy Crush), and I just started playing Cooking Dash today per Melina’s recommendation. So far so good. Both games offer in-app purchases, but over my dead body am I going to pay real money. I do often use the in-game power ups which you do have to pay money for but can also receive for free by leveling up and continuing to play the game. Either way, I don’t have a problem with them.
It's a pretty sad month for toys. Last week, Toys 'R' Us (unsurprisingly) announced that they were shutting down all of their stores across the US. Today, I learned that its founder, Charles Lazarus, passed away at the age of 94. I feel a strong connection to the place because my dad used to tell me that I was adopted from there (this was obviously before I learned how babies were actually made). I have many memories running through the store and picking out a toy or a video game after I scored a goal in my AYSO soccer league (because this was how my parents encouraged me to "be aggressive"!) Its shutdown feels like an end of an era for me, especially since I don't really ever buy toys or physical video games anymore. That's why when I watched Toy Story, I couldn't help but feel nostalgic for those "little kid" days.
I think graphics are super important to my overall experience when watching movies with computer graphics. It reminds me of watching movies with special effects (which, nowadays, typically are accomplished using computer graphics). I remember all of the hype behind the movie, the Exorcist, and how terrifying it was supposed to be. However, when I actually ended up watching it, I was pretty underwhelmed and actually found it kind of funny because of how bad the special effects were. If they made a remake of that movie (which they probably have? don't actually know), it'd probably scare the bajeezus out of me. When computer graphics are done really well, it makes the overall movie or game feel more realistic, which allows me to focus on the actual storyline or whatever is going on rather than focusing on how bad certain things about it look. While I was watching Toy Story, I couldn't help but laugh at how bad the people and the dogs looked compared to the toys. As one of the articles said, they looked "plastic-y". Even the way they walked was a little weird and didn't look as fluid as it would in movies that were created later. Of course, it helps that I've seen this movie multiple times, but I tended to focus on that rather than the actual plot. It detracts from the experience when things look out of the ordinary. However, that being said, graphics can detract rather than enhance these mediums in certain situations. Though 3D computer graphics and hand-drawn animation/2D sprite-based graphics lie in the same fields of creating images for others to enjoy, there is something to say and to admire about the quality of hand-drawn animation and 2D sprite-based graphics. Specifically for hand-drawn animation, since I focused more on movies than video games, I think there is a large amount of appreciation for a movie that was created solely using hand-drawn animation. Though it may not flow as well as a film with CGI, it will still accomplish a lot of the same things and get the same message across. I think with the growing development of 3D computer graphics, a lot of animated films are starting to look more and more "real". Though you know they're meant to be cartoons, I don't think of films like Moana and Frozen featuring cartoon characters. I think of them as being animated characters. When I think of cartoon characters, I typically think of flatter characters like those from Looney Tunes or SpongeBob SquarePants, or any other character one would usually see either on Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon. If these cartoons were 3D, I think it would be a very different experience. It kind of reminds me of when SpongeBob episodes randomly having human hands coming down or the opening theme song with the moving lips in the painting. Because it isn't conducive with the rest of the show, it stands out. I also think there are other mediums where things should be hand-drawn, such as comic books. If comic books were 3D and computer generated, it would take away from the art of the comic book. Getting rid of 2D animation and art would definitely limit the creative freedoms these mediums can have because there are times when one is preferred over the other. I'm so excited! We're finally talking about video games that I played religiously as a child. My favorite non-handheld systems were the Nintendo GameCube, Wii, and PS2, and I played games on those consoles probably every day with my little brother. One of my most distinct childhood memories (other than when I got my first DS) was when I went to a GameStop with my mom and brother shortly after the Wii was released. I remember there was a lot of hype surrounding the device, and it was nearly impossible to buy one in the stores because they were sold out everywhere. However, at this particular store, I remember being in line to buy a different game (probably something PG 13, which is why my mom was there) and the woman at the counter leaning over and whispering, "Hey, do you guys have a Wii?" Honestly, now that I look back at it, it felt like some sort of drug deal was transpiring, the way that we were going about it. Anyway, the woman basically pitched the device to my mom, and she was super excited that it had a physical element to it because she's big on fitness. Unsurprisingly, we walked out of the store with a Wii in our hands and a lot of jealous onlookers staring after us longingly. I thought the article about moms and Nintendo Wii's was pretty funny because it definitely convinced my mom to part with more than $200, and it did not take that much effort.
The games I remember playing the most, other than the typical Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros, and Animal Crossing, were the ones that required you to be more of an active gamer. My family had Dance Dance Revolution (and Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix), Guitar Hero, Rock Band, WiiSports, WiiFit, and a whole lot more. My brother and I used to work up a sweat playing DDR for hours, playing each other and vying to win (which I usually did). I also distinctly remember playing Free Bird on Guitar Hero and never quite mastering the "Expert" level. It sort of blew my mind whenever I saw people playing the game perfectly, hitting all 5 of the buttons with ease. I blame my small hands for my disadvantage. That all being said, I really enjoyed playing games that were more on the active side. Those games hold a lot of good memories for me with my friends and family, and being a more active person, I liked being able to play games while also moving about. I kind of wish I had a system and the devices to play them right now! I haven't played the games in forever. I think the idea of VR and AR are interesting, but I don't think I would really like those sorts of games because they would likely give me headaches. I don't really like 3D movies, and I suspect that VR/AR would be relatively similar. Even if it weren't I think it looks kind of funny because no one else can really tell what you are doing while you play these kinds of games. I'm also not sure about how multiplayer would work, but I think part of the fun of playing video games (in my opinion) is that you can play with others and have fun. I guess that's not the case for everyone since gamers tend to play alone, but at least for me, that's the case. I would like to point out that I am not a video game expert; what I state are either my opinions or something that I read from one of the articles. That being said, video game consoles are, in essence, all pretty much the same thing. They are designed to bring entertainment to the user in various ways, all of which relate to video game playing. The thing that sets them apart appears to be factors like whether there can be 3rd party development, what sort of thing they use to actually hold game files (cartridge vs CD), and whether it's portable or not. The video gamer would likely choose the console that had the game that they wanted to play.
To me, I think that the console is just a means of playing the game, and like someone in one of the articles had mentioned, a console is only as good as the games that you can play on them. However, I do suppose that there are other factors to consider, like the price, which is how Sega seemed to market itself by being $50 cheaper than the competing Nintendo console. It does seem, though, that video game players typically have multiple consoles, not just one. From what I have seen, most do not limit themselves and tend to own each device, so I am not sure how much the kind of video game console matters. I would suspect that the motivation lies in the games, again. If a super cool game is coming out, particularly if it's a revamp of an old game (I think of the Pokemon series, first), then you want to get the device that supports the game you want to play. My favorite console growing up was definitely my Nintendo DS. I used to play that thing like it was my job. I remember distinctly waiting in the Toys R Us parking lot with my brother and dad at 5 in the morning and hearing my dad say he was getting them for my cousins. I was very upset, but he lied. On Christmas morning we had Nintendo DSs under the Christmas tree, and we played Nintendogs for ages. It was a ton of fun. I also really liked the GameCube and the Wii, so obviously I'm a big Nintendo fan. Today I played Mortal Kombat and Doom. Doom was a B-U-S-T. I was really excited because they had a "Read Instructions" option in the main menu, but they played me because it ended up just saying that no instructions were available. :( Anyway, I tried to forge ahead and clicked start, but then I just died? 10 times in a row and got frustrated and quit out. I then played Mortal Kombat, which is really hard to do because the game controls on the computer (control, option, and spacebar) do things on a Mac computer (like pan out of windows and stuff). Because of that, playing it was frustrating, but I did manage to win my first match! The uppercut move is super clutch. It told me to "finish" my opponent, but I bumped into them on accident and that apparently counted as my final move :( Either way, it was kind of fun, barring the technical setbacks. Gaming on a personal computer is different from gaming on a video console because of the way the controls work. Obviously with a computer game, your main way of interacting with the game is going to be the keyboard and the mouse. In contrast, you have controllers for a video console that have far more limited uses (typically movement, a, b, x, and y). Because of this, there are games that are better suited for one rather than the other. For example, combat games like Super Smash Bros or Call of Duty work better for video consoles because they have simple controls. You want to move and do basic commands that can be performed with simple clicks. In contrast, a game like The Sims is better suited for the computer because there is a lot going on. There are a lot of things to click and a lot of different things to keep track of, so a personal computer is more appropriate for this type of gameplay. However, it is interesting that there are games that started off as computer games that migrated towards video consoles, such as The Sims. The Wii version that I had played of The Sims was simpler than the computer version. There were also very different objectives, and the game play was only similar in the basic design. I think that is a concrete example that really shows that there is a difference between what kind of games can be played on the different devices. That being said, there are advantages to playing games on the computer and on the video console. With video consoles, I think it's simpler in its gameplay and its controls. There is less flexibility as far as developing for these games goes, as well, since games are bought separately and essentially plugged into the console. In contrast, computer games can be modified since you can look directly at the code. There is more diversity and variety there since a lot of things can just be found on the internet. I tried to play a couple of games on the archive thing that Bui told us to do. Here are the results: The Oregon Trail game had a weird keyboard thing going on. The n's were being written as b's: Anyway, as for the actual gameplay, I found it very difficult to navigate. I honestly had no idea what I was doing and there weren't any instructions, so I found the majority of it just very confusing. I clicked the "talk" button and then didn't know how to make the man go away, so I quit playing. I then tried to play Frogger because that's the retro game I'm recreating, but it wouldn't load. It got to the main screen but wouldn't continue, so that was kind of sad. Anyway, I played Rogue, also, but I still had no idea what I was doing. I'm not sure if there's an instruction manual or something, but that would have been really useful. Overall, though, the games were okay. The graphics were decent, for black and white? A lot better than what I thought they were going to be considering it was the 80s.
If you ask anyone walking down the streets if they've ever heard of Pac-Man, chances are the response will be "yes" (unless, of course, they're some small child born after 2010; then the chances are reduced). Games like Pac-Man, Dig Dug, Galaga, and others are memorable because of the sheer volume and impact that they had at the time. They were revolutionary. Arcade games were just a blip on the pop culture map prior to the start of this so-called golden age. Sure, people knew what Pong was, and Pinball was pretty dope, but the introduction of arcade games with their shiny new graphics and bright colors really knew how to draw people in.
I think these games were particularly unforgettable because of the time they came about and the impact that they had following it. They were almost annoyingly immersed into every facet of life outside of the home, popping up in even the weirdest places like funeral homes (thanks Wikipedia, for that fun fact!). You would have had to never gone to a diner or driven around your town to not see one of the 400,000 arcades littered across America. Because of this, it comes as no surprise that everyone remembers these fun little games. I think part of its lasting impression comes from nostalgia, but there are also elements to these early arcade games that have had effects on the video games we see today. When we think about games like Frogger, I immediately think about its similarity to the very popular “Crossy Roads”, which was, in essence, an endless game of Frogger with just one life and one “frog”. Even Disney made a spin-off of the game (Disney Crossy Roads), and to be quite honest, I spent an embarrassing amount of time playing that game. I just wanted to collect all of the characters! Nintendo even saw huge success when it released its “Super Nintendo Entertainment System” for the second time just last year, and, okay, so the games weren’t exactly from the golden age of video games, but come on. The system sold out pretty much immediately, and it was because people were super excited to see the video games they played as kids revived in this day and age of Call of Duty 100 (I don’t even know how many of them there are). But even shooting games like Halo and COD are basically super cool, modern spins on the games that came from this age. And actually, just learned this from googling, but apparently COD: World War II (the revamp of the game that rolled out last year) lets you play some retro mini-games within the game kind of like Animal Crossing let you play Balloon Fighter in its games. Honestly, that’s pretty funny, but obviously someone back at HQ thought that was a cool enough feature to implement into their game, so obviously there’s some very real and lingering effects of the golden age still alive and well today. As far as how these classic games stand up to modern games, I just don’t think you can really compare it. These classic games were built with different software at a different time. Gameplay was (typically) super simple and easy to pick up. Some of the video games of today are so difficult I have no idea what to do with them. Just this past fall break, I was in Seattle at the MoPop (Museum of Pop Culture), and they had an exhibit on Indie video games. Inside this exhibit were iPads, computers, monitors, and different video game consoles with some beta games that were released. I’m just gonna say this now, but some of them were just weird. I’m all for the advancement of technology, but if we’re going to use it to make some whack games like this, I don’t really want any part of it. Anyway, that being said, I’m certainly guilty of becoming addicted to my phone games like Candy Crush, and that’s stuck around for a surprisingly long time, but will we remember it 20 years from now? Will the next generation? Probably not. With this current age of total information overload, I think it’s going to be difficult to have a lasting impression like these golden aged video games. I don't consider myself a gamer. Sure, I might have played a ton of video games as a kid, but I stuck with the Pokemon series (which I was obsessed with starting from age 2), Mario games, and Animal Crossing. I remember getting my first Nintendo DS and being super stoked, but I still don't think I was a gamer. It was just a way to pass the time. I never knew much about its history and where it came from. This past week, I heard a lot about the origins of video games, and it was kind of cool to learn about.
The first commercialized use of video games occurred with the (somewhat repetitive) introduction of the TVG#1 (TV Game Unit), which utilized the TV as a console. The video we watched in class showed variations of the same type of code (a dot on the screen that could be controlled by the user) with different "overlays" (physical pictures that depicted "boards") that a family could tape (?) or stick onto the TV, thus changing what sort of game was being played (hockey --> tennis!). Early video games were a step in the direction of modern video games. Modern video games took the idea of using the TV as their platform in order to get their devices into many homes across the nation. Thanks to this foot in the door, Pong, which is considered by many as the first successful video game that was introduced and stuck, was born. What came of Pong was Atari (co-created/founded by the same person, Nolan Bushnell), which we all know pretty well. Pong, though not revolutionary in its gameplay, was the stepping stone to creating the billion dollar industry we know today. By getting the Atari system into the home, it paved the way for the modern gaming systems we know today created by giants like Nintendo and Sony. It's honestly pretty amazing to think about how much video games have evolved from simplistic back and forth play to complicated, well-thought-out, graphical masterpieces of the games we know today. However, with the introduction of video gaming, some challenges were met. There were many who did not think that video games were worth the investment. It was also a different sort of obstacle technologically since early video games were limited in their platforms. For example, "Tennis for Two", the game that most would consider the first video game ever, could only be played on those super huge computers that take up entire rooms that most people have only seen in movies or pictures. Back then, early video games lacked portability and affordability, putting a stop in its development for some time. With the help of the TV, however, it was able to get back on track since it was no longer limited to the mechanics of a giant, expensive computer. Developers were able to be a little more flexible in their work, and players were able to enjoy the games without spending an arm and a leg. This past week, we got to play Pong and Space Wars in class. To be quite honest, I didn't really get Space Wars, but I can see how it would have been a really cool thing to have when it was first introduced. Pong, on the other hand, is so simple and kind of silly when you think about how much time could be spent playing it. |
AuthorJulianna Yee. ArchivesCategories |