I haven't published anything to this blog for quite some time. The school semester ending, finals going on, and the first few weeks of summer vacation have kept me pretty busy. But I felt like writing something this morning and so here we go!
What better to write/geek out about than E3. The Electronic Entertainment Expo's first day was yesterday and several game developers as well as Microsoft and Sony had their press conferences. Here's my take on what I thought and what games I am excited for.
Starting from the end, Sony Press Conference, and going backwards:
inFamous 2 looks sweet, and it's apparently already out, guess I have to hurry my playthrough of the first game.
The PSVita has an odd name and I'm still a little iffy about it, but the games that were demoed looked and seemed to play very nicely.
Ninja Gaiden 3 heavily focused on, "letting you feel like you are actually cutting through and killing humans with a sword," and while that is somewhat disturbing it still looks like a sweet game.
Excited about LittleBigPlanet Vita as well, but it's an LBP game so there's no reason not to be excited.
The PSVita game I was actually most impressed by was ModNation Racers Vita. I haven't played the PS3 ModNation Racers game, but showing off the track creator with the touch pad was very cool and looked like it worked very well.
Resistance 3 I am also iffy about, the original Resistance game was one of the first games I ever got for the PS3, but I never really got in to it. Not sure why, but the new game looks promising enough to make me want to play through the others, at least to figure out the story.
Uncharted 3, of course looks amazing. The ship level they showed was very impressive graphically, gameplay-wise and physics-wise. Drake moved and swayed with the ship and it affected your gameplay; very cool.
Not sure what to think about Bioshock Infinite. I tried the first Bioshock to the many requests of my friends, but I didn't play it much. Not sure if I couldn't get in to it or what, but I'm still iffy. Might be a game I enjoy watching more than playing.
Deus Ex: Human Revolution looked cool. I haven't played the other games in the series, but I like the concept of leveling up different skills and gadgets while having elements of a shooter/stealth game.
Assassin's Creed Revalations trailer and announcement implied that Altair, the master assassin from the original game, would play a major part in Ezio's, the character used for the past few games, storyline which has me excited because I think the AC storyline in general is awesome. The new devices and bomb making mechanics look fun as well.
Rocksmith didn't surprise me as much as I think it should have. It's essentially a game that teaches you to play guitar without any peripheral devices. Meaning you can pull out your actual real guitar, and play this game with it. Not sure what to think, but if I can learn guitar while playing a Guitar-Hero-like game, I'll try it.
Battlefield 3. HOLY. CRAP. Needless to say it was the highpoint of the show for me yesterday. Battlefield Bad Company 2 is one of my all-time favorite online shooters, and even though they haven't shown much multiplayer stuff yet, the campaign seems to be seriously improved and has me really wishing I was at E3 so I could try it out.
The boss fight mechanic from Twisted Metal 3 surprised me. I was already excited about the game but promises of giant boss fights that feel like their own actual levels had me wanting to play even more. The mechanics of Twisted Metal being a shooting/destroying car game would make some interesting boss fights, and I'd like to see more.
Mass Effect 3 looked nice, and the story I have heard so much about almost makes me want to give the first two games another try.
SSX looks to be a lot of fun. I played the N64 version a whole lot with friends and this one looks like it keeps a similar tone to it while being next-gen. It's crazy how they used NASA satellites to make the maps, that along makes me excited to try it.
Star Wars the Old Republic looked awesome obviously, I didn't get to see much about it but I'm still very excited and hoping I get to see more.
Overstrike looks promising. It's made by Insomniac who is a favorite game developer of mine and the trailer was both cool and funny. It was good to see some new IP as well; I'll be keeping an eye on this one.
Fable the Journey has me worried to be honest. The first Fable game was awesome and the second one was very good too. The third wasn't quite as good, and now they are adding motion controls. Honestly it's the motion control part that scares me; the Wii is fun and all, but I'd rather use a controller any day.
Batman Arkham City looked very cool; almost cool enough to make me go back and finish Arkham Asylum.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 didn't really wow me. Don't get me wrong, it still looks like fun, but it almost seems like Infinity Ward is doing the same old thing over and over. I actually enjoyed, for the most part, the campaigns of Modern Warfare 1 and 2, Infinity Ward is very good at making intense action-packed sequences. But if you do it for three games in a row it doesn't have quite the same effect.
Gears of War 3 looked awesome. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but the multiplayer beta was actually a lot of fun, and I will most likely be picking up this game when it hits shelves.
The little trailer of Halo 4 at first had me excited and happy because, well, it's a Halo game. Then I realized that it won't be Bungie making it, so I felt a little worried. Really hoping that we see/hear more of this game soon so I can develop more of an impression of it.
Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is a very cool looking game. The only Elder Scrolls game I have ever touched was Oblivion, and I only played for about 2 hours, not a lot of time to spend in an Elder Scrolls game I'm sure. However, the inclusion of dragons alone is almost enough to make me want to play this game; the fights they showed off were very impressive.
I was very excited for the HD re-release of Ico & Shadow of the Colossus. I haven't played either of these games, but I've watched a friend play and beat Shadow of the Colossus which was an amazing game all the way through. I am very excited to be able to experience these games.
Soul Caliber V was somewhat impressive to me. I enjoyed some of the previous Soul Caliber games, which is the only reason this game is on this list, but quite frankly I'm not sure I'll give another 2D fighter much interest while I have Marvel vs. Capcom 3 to play.
RAGE has me really excited as well. I've been following this game for quite some time and what they showed looks very cool. I like all the different weapons shown and the gameplay seems to be solid.
I know I'm "really excited" about a lot of things, but it's E3 and I'm supposed to be excited. Very much looking forward to Nintendo's conference today as well, they always seem to have a good one and this year they are showing their new console.
What does everyone think about E3 so far?
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Artifact #4 Girls in the Gaming Industry
I had a really hard time coming up with my final artifact. There are so many negative representations of Video Games and Gaming in general in the media, but I wanted to see if I could find something positive. That turned out to be a lot harder than I thought; the most recent articles I could find about how/why Video Games can be beneficial were from a few years ago. I then decided to go in a different approach and looked for something that was positive and included Video Games. I found a Newsarama article on Yahoo News about a relatively new scholarship called G.I.R.L. or Gamers in Real Life that Sony Online Entertainment has been awarding since 2008.
Description: This article is very optimistic in nature towards women in the gaming field, and features multiple quotes and interviews by women in the gaming workplace and by winners of the scholarship. It begins by explaining a little about the scholarship itself, what it actually is and how to earn it etc, and then jumps right into the feature of the article which are the testimonies by the women interviewed about how video games and the scholarship have affected them. The article is titled Sony Encourages Female Game Developers Through Scholarship, and yet the article doesn't go into as much detail about the scholarship as you may think. It mostly focuses on the personal experiences of the women, and why the gaming industry needs more women to be involved. It also highlights what the women who have won the scholarship so far have done, and it's nice to see them working on popular projects that I am actually familiar with and not some obscure title.
Analysis: There are only a few patterns that I can see in this article. One is the attention to the women in the gaming industry. Obviously this is going to be a good thing to have since the entire article is about how they need more women to work for gaming companies. Another pattern I noticed is that the article puts a very positive light on all the topics covered. There is little to no negativity in the article at all, instead focusing on all the fun and enjoyment these women have gotten out of playing games, the scholarship, and their work within the gaming industry. A final pattern I noticed is that they seemed to want to make the women interviewed relatable to other girls who play games or are at least interested. They had examples of the women's accounts of when they first knew they wanted to be involved with gaming as a profession, and even examples of what kinds of games they enjoy.
Interpretation: The first pattern, the observation that the article is focused on women, doesn't really need to be explained. The article specifically cites that it will be about women and their role in the gaming industry, so there is very little to Interpret from that. The second pattern though has more in it that could be interpreted. As I said, the article has little to no negativity to it at all, instead focusing on all of the positive benefits of becoming a women in the gaming industry. Having some experience of this myself, as a Game Design and Programming Major not a woman, I can say that it definitely isn't all happiness and fun. Being a programmer takes a lot of time and effort in order to even crack the surface, getting to be a good programmer proved to be way beyond my patience and understanding of the field. What it comes down though is that Sony wants to "sell" this scholarship to the female gamers and the females interested in pursuing this path. This is also the explanation to the third pattern. By including these women who went from typical gamers in school to actually being in the gaming industry they are hoping to relate to the women reading this and thereby influence them to try it out for themselves. It is because of this that Song would not want to put anything negative at all in the information and following article about this scholarship. Doing so would cause a lot of people to second guess themselves as to whether or not it would be worth it to try. I was influenced myself by articles similar to this one to try Game Design and Programming for myself, and like this article it focused entirely on the positives of the gaming industry. However I quickly learned of the negatives when I decided to try it for myself, and these negatives proved to be enough to dissuade me from continuing my studies.
This doesn't relate to a pattern really, but I thought it was most suitable to the Interpretation step. I noticed that the article did mention that the scholarship was actually open to men as well, but most were put off or not aware they could try out for it because of the acronym used for it, G.I.R.L.. I found that interesting that Sony would do this. Why title something with the acronym G.I.R.L. (Gamers in Real Life), have it targeted primarily towards females, but have it open to men as well? I find myself very confused by this, they even mention in the article that a few men have tried for it but didn't make it to the end. Sony should have been more clear with their intentions in the first place and either made it entirely for and about hiring females interested, or making it more ambiguous and targeting both males and females.
Evaluation: All in all I very much enjoyed this article. I am an avid gamer myself (if you couldn't tell by the blog title) and am very much in support of anyone trying to enter the gaming industry whether they be male or female. The article did put a very positive and supportive light on why and how women can enter into a gaming career, and even had testimony from other females who have done just this. The message is very clear, the gaming industry needs more female input as it is very clearly and openly dominated by men. However I was a little disappointed that they didn't include some of the hardships associated within the gaming industry, and that the article seemed to encourage making art for games more than programming or another area. By including the hardships or a career in gaming the article would feel more real, and the examples given by the women would have more weight and credibility to them. By saying that it was through hard work and dedication that they were able to make it this far sounds better then having them seemingly coast right to their dream job. It also seemed a little biased or sexist that the article heavily emphasized an Artistic concentration in the gaming field for women rather then another area. It is known that there are far more women who are in the gaming industry who are artists rather than programmers for example, but by not including more examples and facts about programming it is almost sorting the males and females into categories based on what is expected. While I find it amusing that an article about Female Gamers and Developers is slightly sexist towards the people they are targeting, I think that could have been solved with a little better wording and some more research in the area.
I still enjoyed this article overall and I wish the best of luck to anyone trying out for a job in the gaming field. I myself still hope to get there someday, but in a writing or development position rather than art or programming. Here's hoping that can be accomplished!
Link to article: Sony Encourages Female Game Developers
Description: This article is very optimistic in nature towards women in the gaming field, and features multiple quotes and interviews by women in the gaming workplace and by winners of the scholarship. It begins by explaining a little about the scholarship itself, what it actually is and how to earn it etc, and then jumps right into the feature of the article which are the testimonies by the women interviewed about how video games and the scholarship have affected them. The article is titled Sony Encourages Female Game Developers Through Scholarship, and yet the article doesn't go into as much detail about the scholarship as you may think. It mostly focuses on the personal experiences of the women, and why the gaming industry needs more women to be involved. It also highlights what the women who have won the scholarship so far have done, and it's nice to see them working on popular projects that I am actually familiar with and not some obscure title.
Analysis: There are only a few patterns that I can see in this article. One is the attention to the women in the gaming industry. Obviously this is going to be a good thing to have since the entire article is about how they need more women to work for gaming companies. Another pattern I noticed is that the article puts a very positive light on all the topics covered. There is little to no negativity in the article at all, instead focusing on all the fun and enjoyment these women have gotten out of playing games, the scholarship, and their work within the gaming industry. A final pattern I noticed is that they seemed to want to make the women interviewed relatable to other girls who play games or are at least interested. They had examples of the women's accounts of when they first knew they wanted to be involved with gaming as a profession, and even examples of what kinds of games they enjoy.
Interpretation: The first pattern, the observation that the article is focused on women, doesn't really need to be explained. The article specifically cites that it will be about women and their role in the gaming industry, so there is very little to Interpret from that. The second pattern though has more in it that could be interpreted. As I said, the article has little to no negativity to it at all, instead focusing on all of the positive benefits of becoming a women in the gaming industry. Having some experience of this myself, as a Game Design and Programming Major not a woman, I can say that it definitely isn't all happiness and fun. Being a programmer takes a lot of time and effort in order to even crack the surface, getting to be a good programmer proved to be way beyond my patience and understanding of the field. What it comes down though is that Sony wants to "sell" this scholarship to the female gamers and the females interested in pursuing this path. This is also the explanation to the third pattern. By including these women who went from typical gamers in school to actually being in the gaming industry they are hoping to relate to the women reading this and thereby influence them to try it out for themselves. It is because of this that Song would not want to put anything negative at all in the information and following article about this scholarship. Doing so would cause a lot of people to second guess themselves as to whether or not it would be worth it to try. I was influenced myself by articles similar to this one to try Game Design and Programming for myself, and like this article it focused entirely on the positives of the gaming industry. However I quickly learned of the negatives when I decided to try it for myself, and these negatives proved to be enough to dissuade me from continuing my studies.
This doesn't relate to a pattern really, but I thought it was most suitable to the Interpretation step. I noticed that the article did mention that the scholarship was actually open to men as well, but most were put off or not aware they could try out for it because of the acronym used for it, G.I.R.L.. I found that interesting that Sony would do this. Why title something with the acronym G.I.R.L. (Gamers in Real Life), have it targeted primarily towards females, but have it open to men as well? I find myself very confused by this, they even mention in the article that a few men have tried for it but didn't make it to the end. Sony should have been more clear with their intentions in the first place and either made it entirely for and about hiring females interested, or making it more ambiguous and targeting both males and females.
Evaluation: All in all I very much enjoyed this article. I am an avid gamer myself (if you couldn't tell by the blog title) and am very much in support of anyone trying to enter the gaming industry whether they be male or female. The article did put a very positive and supportive light on why and how women can enter into a gaming career, and even had testimony from other females who have done just this. The message is very clear, the gaming industry needs more female input as it is very clearly and openly dominated by men. However I was a little disappointed that they didn't include some of the hardships associated within the gaming industry, and that the article seemed to encourage making art for games more than programming or another area. By including the hardships or a career in gaming the article would feel more real, and the examples given by the women would have more weight and credibility to them. By saying that it was through hard work and dedication that they were able to make it this far sounds better then having them seemingly coast right to their dream job. It also seemed a little biased or sexist that the article heavily emphasized an Artistic concentration in the gaming field for women rather then another area. It is known that there are far more women who are in the gaming industry who are artists rather than programmers for example, but by not including more examples and facts about programming it is almost sorting the males and females into categories based on what is expected. While I find it amusing that an article about Female Gamers and Developers is slightly sexist towards the people they are targeting, I think that could have been solved with a little better wording and some more research in the area.
I still enjoyed this article overall and I wish the best of luck to anyone trying out for a job in the gaming field. I myself still hope to get there someday, but in a writing or development position rather than art or programming. Here's hoping that can be accomplished!
Link to article: Sony Encourages Female Game Developers
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Artifact #3 Video Games in the Courtroom.
This week for my artifact I am focusing on video games and their appearances and reasons for appearing in court. More specifically I'll be talking about the "Arnold Schwarzenegger vs. Entertainment Merchants Association" case.
Description: The cause for this case began back in 2005 when California state senator Leeland Yee:
"[...] introduced a piece of legislation requiring violent video games in the region to carry a small ‘18+’ sticker alongside their ESRB ratings. Responsibility for ensuring these games were not sold to anyone below that age then fell to California retailers, and a fine of $1,000 (£625) could be brought against those who did not comply with this new law." (Stuart Richardson, Develop-online.net)
The bill was passed by the state of California but was not put into affect because the Entertainment Software Association put out an injunction against it and won, and then won again when the state of California tried to pass it later on. This has since snowballed into the state of California repeatedly trying to pass this law and failing. Finally, in 2010 the Supreme Court decided to take on this case, which has people wondering why they would do that. Some argue that it's because they want to finally shut down California's attempts at passing this law, while others argue that it's because the court has had a change in opinion and want to side with California and make selling video games more government oriented.
Before I forget, the law didn't pass for several reasons.
1. They argued that video games were an artform and form of expression similar to films, books and music, and were therefore protected under the First Amendment, which prohibits all government censorship.
2. It was pointed out that ESRB ratings were already providing the service that California was seeking, and that most parents were capable of regulating the content their children saw.
3. It was also argued that there was no comprehensive proof that violent video games were harmful to children, and that a political agenda had frequently fueled such accusations in the past.
4. The ESA and EMA pointed out that the California legislature, which was based on a legal definition of violence developed in the 1970s, didn’t take into account the types of violence that modern video games could feature. In this sense its definition of a violent act being ‘an act of aggression on an image of a human being’ was vague in regards to characters like Super Mario.
(Stuart Richardson, Develop-online.net)
Analysis: The main pattern is California's desire for more control over what kinds of video games are being sold, and who is buying them. Doing so would give the government more power in the still expanding in power and popularity gaming field. It would allow the government to place specific rules and regulations when it came to buying certain games, and some might not be allowed to be sold at all.
Another pattern I noticed is basically the case itself; the reasons that the state wanted to ban these violent video games are almost always the reason, or part of it, that most people want to ban violent games. The state's definition of a violent game is that of a,
"game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." Under the law, retailers that sold such games would be subject to a $1,000 fine." (Brendan Sinclair, Gamespot.com)
This or something similar to this quote is the norm for people putting the blame on increasing violence or sexual occurrences, especially in the younger generations, and has been repeatedly turned down because it is both vague and biased.
Interpretation: I say that this idea is vague because what if the video game in question is very violent, but doesn't feature humans? Or what about zombies? Does Mario from the Super Mario games count as a human? Defendants of California,
"[...] conceded that it would be perfectly fine to blow Vulcans to into tiny, bloody bits under the law. In a Star Trek video game, they could show Spock dying a violent bloody death, but not not a doomed red shirt. Or could they? How would the law treat a half-human half-Vulcan like Spock?" (Doug Cornelius, Wired.com)
So the state of California wants to ban violent "Human Based" games but are ok with blowing up or dismembering aliens.
I also said that this/these statements are biased which I believe to be true to an extent. Most of the arguments stem from super violent games such as Postal 2 in which you can burn people alive with gasoline, and kill children, for example. However, they only take into account those few games that involve violence to such a high level and try to base every game that includes violence or sexual content in the same fashion.
These people are not looking at the big picture here, obviously, because they missed the fact that they said it would be ok to kill things of species other than humans. That show's a major weak point in their argument, why is it alright for a child to see an elf or zombie, which are human-like, get killed but not a human?
Evaluation: I for one really hope that this law is not passed. If it were to, it could evolve into something that could reach across the country and making creating and selling games intended for older audiences a lot more difficult. Being 21 years old now means that this law would not affect me, but it would affect all the game companies out there and their willingness to create new content with the fear that if it includes a certain kind of violence or sexual reference that it will not sell well, not sell to people who are willing to buy it, or not be allowed to sell entirely.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it all comes down to the parents of these children that the government is so worried about. I won't rant about it again, but parents should be involved in their children's lives and know what's going on. If they are doing something they aren't supposed to be, it's the responsibility of the parents to fix the problem and explain why it may not be allowed.
I also very much support the ESRB and the view that video games should be an art form. Things like movies are considered an art form, and yet people don't freak out (as much) when a violent or sexual movie comes out as opposed to a video game. I have personally played games with rich compelling stories, fully orchestrated soundtracks, and scenes that could put some movies to shame. It is because of reasons like those, and many others, that I believe video games should be treated as an art form and given more of the freedoms that come with that. Games even have their own rating system already in the form of the ESRB, and this rating system almost directly mirrors the system used for movies.
If people can watch movies or read books involving excessive violence or sexually explicit material, then why can't I take the grounds of playing that story or movie and not be scrutinized because of it?
Links to referenced sites:
Develop-online.net
Gamespot.com
Wired.com
abcnews.com
Description: The cause for this case began back in 2005 when California state senator Leeland Yee:
"[...] introduced a piece of legislation requiring violent video games in the region to carry a small ‘18+’ sticker alongside their ESRB ratings. Responsibility for ensuring these games were not sold to anyone below that age then fell to California retailers, and a fine of $1,000 (£625) could be brought against those who did not comply with this new law." (Stuart Richardson, Develop-online.net)
The bill was passed by the state of California but was not put into affect because the Entertainment Software Association put out an injunction against it and won, and then won again when the state of California tried to pass it later on. This has since snowballed into the state of California repeatedly trying to pass this law and failing. Finally, in 2010 the Supreme Court decided to take on this case, which has people wondering why they would do that. Some argue that it's because they want to finally shut down California's attempts at passing this law, while others argue that it's because the court has had a change in opinion and want to side with California and make selling video games more government oriented.
Before I forget, the law didn't pass for several reasons.
1. They argued that video games were an artform and form of expression similar to films, books and music, and were therefore protected under the First Amendment, which prohibits all government censorship.
2. It was pointed out that ESRB ratings were already providing the service that California was seeking, and that most parents were capable of regulating the content their children saw.
3. It was also argued that there was no comprehensive proof that violent video games were harmful to children, and that a political agenda had frequently fueled such accusations in the past.
4. The ESA and EMA pointed out that the California legislature, which was based on a legal definition of violence developed in the 1970s, didn’t take into account the types of violence that modern video games could feature. In this sense its definition of a violent act being ‘an act of aggression on an image of a human being’ was vague in regards to characters like Super Mario.
(Stuart Richardson, Develop-online.net)
Analysis: The main pattern is California's desire for more control over what kinds of video games are being sold, and who is buying them. Doing so would give the government more power in the still expanding in power and popularity gaming field. It would allow the government to place specific rules and regulations when it came to buying certain games, and some might not be allowed to be sold at all.
Another pattern I noticed is basically the case itself; the reasons that the state wanted to ban these violent video games are almost always the reason, or part of it, that most people want to ban violent games. The state's definition of a violent game is that of a,
"game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." Under the law, retailers that sold such games would be subject to a $1,000 fine." (Brendan Sinclair, Gamespot.com)
This or something similar to this quote is the norm for people putting the blame on increasing violence or sexual occurrences, especially in the younger generations, and has been repeatedly turned down because it is both vague and biased.
Interpretation: I say that this idea is vague because what if the video game in question is very violent, but doesn't feature humans? Or what about zombies? Does Mario from the Super Mario games count as a human? Defendants of California,
"[...] conceded that it would be perfectly fine to blow Vulcans to into tiny, bloody bits under the law. In a Star Trek video game, they could show Spock dying a violent bloody death, but not not a doomed red shirt. Or could they? How would the law treat a half-human half-Vulcan like Spock?" (Doug Cornelius, Wired.com)
So the state of California wants to ban violent "Human Based" games but are ok with blowing up or dismembering aliens.
I also said that this/these statements are biased which I believe to be true to an extent. Most of the arguments stem from super violent games such as Postal 2 in which you can burn people alive with gasoline, and kill children, for example. However, they only take into account those few games that involve violence to such a high level and try to base every game that includes violence or sexual content in the same fashion.
These people are not looking at the big picture here, obviously, because they missed the fact that they said it would be ok to kill things of species other than humans. That show's a major weak point in their argument, why is it alright for a child to see an elf or zombie, which are human-like, get killed but not a human?
Evaluation: I for one really hope that this law is not passed. If it were to, it could evolve into something that could reach across the country and making creating and selling games intended for older audiences a lot more difficult. Being 21 years old now means that this law would not affect me, but it would affect all the game companies out there and their willingness to create new content with the fear that if it includes a certain kind of violence or sexual reference that it will not sell well, not sell to people who are willing to buy it, or not be allowed to sell entirely.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it all comes down to the parents of these children that the government is so worried about. I won't rant about it again, but parents should be involved in their children's lives and know what's going on. If they are doing something they aren't supposed to be, it's the responsibility of the parents to fix the problem and explain why it may not be allowed.
I also very much support the ESRB and the view that video games should be an art form. Things like movies are considered an art form, and yet people don't freak out (as much) when a violent or sexual movie comes out as opposed to a video game. I have personally played games with rich compelling stories, fully orchestrated soundtracks, and scenes that could put some movies to shame. It is because of reasons like those, and many others, that I believe video games should be treated as an art form and given more of the freedoms that come with that. Games even have their own rating system already in the form of the ESRB, and this rating system almost directly mirrors the system used for movies.
If people can watch movies or read books involving excessive violence or sexually explicit material, then why can't I take the grounds of playing that story or movie and not be scrutinized because of it?
Links to referenced sites:
Develop-online.net
Gamespot.com
Wired.com
abcnews.com
Monday, February 14, 2011
Marvel vs. Capcom 3 comes out Midnight tonight...
and I'll be at Gamestop to pick it up most definitely.
It seems like I've been waiting for this game to come out for forever now, and it's odd that it finally is. I'm very excited to play it, and especially excited to beat down all my friends.
Links to all the awesome cinematic trailers in order. Make sure to watch full screen and at the highest resolution you can for added awesomeness.
It seems like I've been waiting for this game to come out for forever now, and it's odd that it finally is. I'm very excited to play it, and especially excited to beat down all my friends.
Links to all the awesome cinematic trailers in order. Make sure to watch full screen and at the highest resolution you can for added awesomeness.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Artifact #2 Biased Opinions
Hey everyone, this is my 2nd artifact for what will eventually be my final paper in my Media Comm class. This week I've chosen to look at opinions that are purely based off of personal bias that relate to video games in the media, and what better place to look than Fox News?!
*quick side note: I plan on doing more research on other biased sources, I know there are plenty out there as I've read a lot of them, but for the sake of this post I'm going to focus on this one article.
Description: Fox News recently published an article on a new video game that is to be released soon called Bulletstorm. The game is made by the developers at Epic, the same team who did the popular Gears of War series. The game is a futuristic shooter where you take the responsibility of basically gunning down waves of enemies over and over. The selling point of this game is that that you "kill with style" which boils down to you shooting an enemy in particular spots of their body, or killing them with some sort of environmental object, or killing multiple enemies in a certain way. Doing those gets rewards the player with more points with which they use to upgrade their character.
I won't go too much into it, but for those interested here's a few links with info on the game:
http://www.bulletstorm.com/ (main page)
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/exclusive-story-bulletstorm/708537 (short video on story and characters)
*Language warning for both links.
Getting to the actual article, which first of all is labeled, "Is Bulletstorm the Worst Video Game in the World?". This should hint at what themes the article is going to convey. A basic summary of the article boils down to this:
Bulletstorm is an incredibly violent game in which players are rewarded for killing enemies in increasingly violent ways. These "skill shots" are very graphically violent and are named after explicit sexual acts. For example the Skill Shot "Topless" means cutting a player in half while "Gang Bang" is killing multiple enemies at once. Considering children as young as 9 years old play this game, its an abomination.
Then they bring in Dr. Jerry Weichman, a clinical psychologist at the Hoag Neurosciences Institute in Southern California, who says, "“Violent video games like Bulletstorm have the potential to send the message that violence and insults with sexual innuendos are the way to handle disputes and problems,”, and who goes on to explain that sexual scenes and innuendos in video games can be directly attributed to the increase in the counts of rape.
The article goes to offer suggestions on how to save younger audiences from this game, mainly through a law that may be passed in California that penalizes store clerks who sell mature rated games, like Bulletstorm, to minors.
Analysis: As with most of the Fox news articles relating to video games, this one follows a formula. First: They attempt to scare you with their explanation of this new video game that is going to be released and why it's so bad. Bias #1
Second: They will bring in an "expert" or a concerned parent to explain why this game should not be sold ever to anyone. Bias #2
Third: They talk about the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) ratings and how they simply are not working as they should be. Bias #3
Fourth: They offer a solution to violent or suggestive video games being sold. Bias #4
Fifth: They speak on how the video game companies defend their idea. Bias #5
Sixth: Lastly they go over why the companies are wrong for defending their idea, and offer a warning to people who do, or a few quotes from people in the gaming field. Bias #6
You can mix some of those steps around but you get the point, they have generally the same thing to say about any violent or controversial game.
Interpretation: There is a definite pattern to how Fox approaches violent or controversial games and Bulletstorm is no different. By talking about all the violence and sexual themes in the game first, the writer is trying to scare you into being convinced that their opinion is right from the get go, and therefore you will be more inclined to agree with them through the article. It's not until after they explain the violence, sexual themes, and bring in the "expert" who speaks on how violence and sexual themes in games are attributed to increase in rape (don't even get me started on that), that they talk about the video game rating system. They do this, again, so that you are more inclined to be sided with them by the time they get to why and how the gaming companies and community defend themselves. Then pointing out that Epic, the developer of the game, and Microsoft, the maker of the Xbox 360, declined to comment on the matter makes them seem like the bad guys. So purely by use of scare tactics and very little proven factual material, Fox News is able to shove their bias against video games right in people's faces without most of them realizing it.
Evaluation: The ESRB was put into place before I can remember, considering most every game I remember getting had that little letter on the box that said what age group this game was made for. I believe that this system is a valid approach towards marketing games for particular audiences, but clearly Fox News doesn't. They say that children as young as 9 will be playing this game, first of all, how do they know this? They don't cite where they got this information anywhere, but that's besides the point. Considering BulletstormNew's comments towards this game have a negative bias to them. Not once is a nice thing said about the game, by Fox News anyway, and they only speak about the violence and sexual themes in the game.
I'd like to point a few things out: The game has not been released yet so all of what they are reporting on is done from an outsiders standpoint. Which also relates to how they never mentioned that THEY HAD EVER PLAYED THE GAME. How are you supposed to report on something with such bias and knowledge if you have no or very little knowledge it yourself?
Articles with such a strong negative bias such as this really anger and sadden me especially since most of them are about video games. If the media would slow down a second and really get their facts straight they would see that there are numerous things that the video game developers and community are doing to make sure that games are being put in the right hands. The article ends off with two quotes from Hal Levy with the National Youth Rights Association which are clearly meant to be viewed with the negative connotation you developed as you read this article. It starts with Fox saying that those who don't see Bulletstorm as a problem are praising it; which I can see the venom dripping off the lips of the journalist who wrote this article.
Hal Levy says, "One thing that tends to be ignored is that if Bulletstorm consisted solely of beating people up, it wouldn't be fun to play. It's been praised for encouraging innovative thinking. Bulletstorm involves developing new moves and dispatching of enemies creatively. Plenty of emotionally unstable adults will play the game they'll be fine."
MPAA Rating System: http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Artifact #1 The King of Kong
My topic for my Comm 3060 class is how video games are represented in the media. For my reports I wanted to get more than just online or newspaper articles, so first I went to documentaries. There are a few out there that I still want to see, but this one was the most readily available and after watching it, I am glad I did.
The documentary is called The King of Kong. It follows two men, Steve Wiebe (pronounced Weebee) and Billy Mitchell, as they compete for the world record high score in the class arcade game Donkey Kong. This movie had a lot more to it than I realized, it turned out to be a very interesting biography on video game culture and the people who have more or less dedicated their lives to it.
I want to point out too that this movie was released in 2007, so it is still very recent.
Onto the Critical Process!
Description: As I already said, this movie follows primarily two men, Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell, as they battle back and forth to obtain the world record high score in the arcade game Donkey Kong. The movie also features spots by various referees and friends of the competitors including Walter Day, the owner of Twin Galaxies, Robert Mruczek, the chief referee, Brian Kuh, a close friend and student of Billy Mitchell, Steve Sanders, another close friend of Billy's, and Doris Self, a women who had held the record of world's oldest video game champion.
Analysis: The story of this documentary surprised me. It definitely focuses on video games, but at the same time the highlight and focal point of the movie is the way these games have affected the people who participate in them. Billy Mitchell was introduced first, and his background detailed fame and success at video games from a young age to the present day. He is shown to have a very arrogant, self righteous attitude towards basically anything and anybody. He is often seen or heard speaking on how he's the greatest game player of all time, or that he is a winner... you get the idea. His personal life is shown somewhat, he is married and runs his own business making and selling hot sauces. He is very close with both the people at Twin Galaxies, considering he was their poster boy since they started out, and with Steve Sanders and Brian Kuh.
Just the opposite of Mitchell is Steve Wiebe, a married with two young children, unemployed at the start of the movie, all-around nice guy. He is shown to be the everyman, having to deal with raising a family and finding a job to support said family. He is very competitive, although it is explained early on that while Wiebe has competed in many things from sports to music all his life, he was never able to get the recognition he deserved. So Steve sets off on his quest to top the high score of Billy Mitchell in the game Donkey Kong, an idea he had while thinking of ways to unwind after job hunting.
We also get a look at the "company" Twin Galaxies, which is the official record holder of all things related to video game high scores. The company was founded by Walter Day in the early 1980s. During his entire life Walter Day wanted to be part of the video game culture, and so he began spectating, commentating, and finally became an official referee to the video game community.
Interpretation: During the whole movie, Billy Mitchell is portrayed as the high and mighty bad guy while Steve Wiebe is the tragic underdog whom everyone loves to root for. Those roles couldn't be more spot on with these men and their actual personalities that are shown during the film. Mitchell is very cocky and even at a point states that next to his family, he considers his game high scores his greatest achievement in life. On the other side of that, it is eventually shown that Wiebe becomes a school teacher, and still spends a lot of time with his family. So classic good guy vs. bad guy scenario.
I really did enjoy the character analysis of this film, but for the sake of my project I have to focus and bring up the video games primarily.
That's in no way saying that the movie did a bad job of this, its completely the contrary. I was a little surprised to see that even in the year 2007 there were still so many people who were so devoted to these classic games. The news media even did reports on the rivalry between Mitchell and Wiebe, and there was not a negative word about games in them. What I found very interesting as well, is the flash backs to when video games were first becoming massively popular, and scenes of a young Mitchell and Steve Sanders showed that video games in the past had received mostly overwhelmingly positive reviews. Compare that with the media of today which includes blaming games for everything from suicides to school shootings. It makes me wonder, what happened between these times that changed everyone's minds about video games? In the movie as well that showed the scenes in the arcade, there were mostly grown men competing in these games. All of the stars of the movie were adults, most of them with children, and yet they don't see very much fault with playing these games.
Evaluation (Figured I'd head here before my interpretation got more Evaluation-y): I very much enjoyed this documentary, and I would recommend it to anyone. You don't even have to know much about video games to enjoy it.
I also think this movie would provide a valid argument for my justification paper, "What has happened between games and the media since video games first became popular?" This was the question on my mind constantly as I was this film. It was because I am used to the way the majority of the world views video games now; as being violent and blamed for any violent thing that happens. In this movie however, they had public news teams, cheerleaders, full news reports all starring normal guys who happened to great at a video game. That is unheard of nowadays, at least on mainstream media.
This movie gave me a good insight into how the world used to see video games, and how some people still see them today. It will prove to be very useful for arguing that video games should be viewed in a more positive light.
I do also think I am going to have to find another artifact that relates closer to the media eventually, and I could use any suggestions if people have one. I am thinking of watching the documentary Second Skin that looks at people immersed in the world of MMORPGS. Let me know what you think!
The documentary is called The King of Kong. It follows two men, Steve Wiebe (pronounced Weebee) and Billy Mitchell, as they compete for the world record high score in the class arcade game Donkey Kong. This movie had a lot more to it than I realized, it turned out to be a very interesting biography on video game culture and the people who have more or less dedicated their lives to it.
I want to point out too that this movie was released in 2007, so it is still very recent.
Onto the Critical Process!
Description: As I already said, this movie follows primarily two men, Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell, as they battle back and forth to obtain the world record high score in the arcade game Donkey Kong. The movie also features spots by various referees and friends of the competitors including Walter Day, the owner of Twin Galaxies, Robert Mruczek, the chief referee, Brian Kuh, a close friend and student of Billy Mitchell, Steve Sanders, another close friend of Billy's, and Doris Self, a women who had held the record of world's oldest video game champion.
Analysis: The story of this documentary surprised me. It definitely focuses on video games, but at the same time the highlight and focal point of the movie is the way these games have affected the people who participate in them. Billy Mitchell was introduced first, and his background detailed fame and success at video games from a young age to the present day. He is shown to have a very arrogant, self righteous attitude towards basically anything and anybody. He is often seen or heard speaking on how he's the greatest game player of all time, or that he is a winner... you get the idea. His personal life is shown somewhat, he is married and runs his own business making and selling hot sauces. He is very close with both the people at Twin Galaxies, considering he was their poster boy since they started out, and with Steve Sanders and Brian Kuh.
Just the opposite of Mitchell is Steve Wiebe, a married with two young children, unemployed at the start of the movie, all-around nice guy. He is shown to be the everyman, having to deal with raising a family and finding a job to support said family. He is very competitive, although it is explained early on that while Wiebe has competed in many things from sports to music all his life, he was never able to get the recognition he deserved. So Steve sets off on his quest to top the high score of Billy Mitchell in the game Donkey Kong, an idea he had while thinking of ways to unwind after job hunting.
We also get a look at the "company" Twin Galaxies, which is the official record holder of all things related to video game high scores. The company was founded by Walter Day in the early 1980s. During his entire life Walter Day wanted to be part of the video game culture, and so he began spectating, commentating, and finally became an official referee to the video game community.
Interpretation: During the whole movie, Billy Mitchell is portrayed as the high and mighty bad guy while Steve Wiebe is the tragic underdog whom everyone loves to root for. Those roles couldn't be more spot on with these men and their actual personalities that are shown during the film. Mitchell is very cocky and even at a point states that next to his family, he considers his game high scores his greatest achievement in life. On the other side of that, it is eventually shown that Wiebe becomes a school teacher, and still spends a lot of time with his family. So classic good guy vs. bad guy scenario.
I really did enjoy the character analysis of this film, but for the sake of my project I have to focus and bring up the video games primarily.
That's in no way saying that the movie did a bad job of this, its completely the contrary. I was a little surprised to see that even in the year 2007 there were still so many people who were so devoted to these classic games. The news media even did reports on the rivalry between Mitchell and Wiebe, and there was not a negative word about games in them. What I found very interesting as well, is the flash backs to when video games were first becoming massively popular, and scenes of a young Mitchell and Steve Sanders showed that video games in the past had received mostly overwhelmingly positive reviews. Compare that with the media of today which includes blaming games for everything from suicides to school shootings. It makes me wonder, what happened between these times that changed everyone's minds about video games? In the movie as well that showed the scenes in the arcade, there were mostly grown men competing in these games. All of the stars of the movie were adults, most of them with children, and yet they don't see very much fault with playing these games.
Evaluation (Figured I'd head here before my interpretation got more Evaluation-y): I very much enjoyed this documentary, and I would recommend it to anyone. You don't even have to know much about video games to enjoy it.
I also think this movie would provide a valid argument for my justification paper, "What has happened between games and the media since video games first became popular?" This was the question on my mind constantly as I was this film. It was because I am used to the way the majority of the world views video games now; as being violent and blamed for any violent thing that happens. In this movie however, they had public news teams, cheerleaders, full news reports all starring normal guys who happened to great at a video game. That is unheard of nowadays, at least on mainstream media.
This movie gave me a good insight into how the world used to see video games, and how some people still see them today. It will prove to be very useful for arguing that video games should be viewed in a more positive light.
I do also think I am going to have to find another artifact that relates closer to the media eventually, and I could use any suggestions if people have one. I am thinking of watching the documentary Second Skin that looks at people immersed in the world of MMORPGS. Let me know what you think!
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
My Thoughts on Assassin's Creed Brotherhood
So I just finished Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, the 3rd entry in the series of Assassin's Creed games. I thought that the combat was vastly improved from the previous games, instead of having to wait for an enemy to strike, then counter-kill them, then waiting, then another counter-kill, Brotherhood lets you kill an enemy, and then with the right timing, immediately one-hit kill a nearby enemy or enemies. This lets you feel much more like an Assassin, being able to reduce a group of 5-6 soldiers into corpses in a matter of seconds.
The story also gets a bit more flushed out while at the same time keeping players very in the dark about what is actually going on, which I very much enjoy. I like good sci-fi mystery stories that reveal the plot little by little, teasing you with small pieces of the story and then finally revealing it (or most of it) at the end. So I'm hoping that they offer a bit more explanation in the next game, as the ending of Brotherhood gives me a lot more questions.
Now for what I didn't like, which is the same thing I didn't like in any of the previous Assassin's Creed games, the movement and platforming controls. Assassin's Creed puts you in the role of a powerful high ranking assassin, in this case his name is Ezio Auditore da Firenze, and you are able to climb buildings, leap rooftops, scale walls, dive off of high perches, all with ease and grace.
At least you are supposed to.
I want to start off by saying that I consider myself a good gamer. I have many years of experience with platformers especially, and I have also played and beaten the two previous Assassin's Creed games, so I am well versed in the control scheme of the game. That being said, either I am not as good of a gamer as I thought I was, the developers need to put a bit more work into their controls, or Ezio might be getting some brain damage from all the times I've gotten him to fall off of buildings.
It ranged from something as simple as walking through a crowd of people, to jumping across rooftops. Both of those and everything in between, for me, featured Ezio falling over, or jumping the entirely wrong direction, or simply not moving for more than half the times I tried to accomplish something.
Here's some examples:
(Now with hastily drawn illustrations!)
First up is what would happen least often. I would go to the edge of a building and press forward to jump to the next one, and Ezio would just kind of stare down, for a good while, not responding at all. A few moments later he might turn around, only to repeat the same process again.
Next we see a common occurrence. Here I am running along a rooftop with enemies chasing me, while other enemies on the ground wait to see if I fall, and throw rocks at me for encouragement. I see there's a hay bale I can jump to from this roof with a jumping board aiming right at it. It's obvious, I'll jump off the board straight ahead and hit the hay bale avoiding the enemies.
What actually winds up happening is me hitting the jumping platform running straight ahead, the hay bale down and in front me of, and Ezio decides his life isn't quite dangerous enough as it is and instead takes a leap off camera and onto the sword tips of the enemies who continue to throw rocks at him as he falls. Slightly frustrating considering I can usually just fight off the enemies, but it gets worse as it happens repeatedly.
Finally we come to the most frequent source of my rage entirely blamed at this game. Here is supposed to represent Ezio needing to jump from a platform from another by grabbing onto the side and then climbing up. Super simple right?
I point him at the platform and he launches into the air towards the wall notched especially for climbing, because the developers designed them to be climbed on of course.
Well they could have fooled me. Considering MOST OF THE TIME I would send Ezio towards whatever it was he had to jump to, and he would slam his face into the thing, and then fall to the ground where he would stand there with a dumb look on his face. This was especially frequent during portions of the game with extensive platforming, and if you fell, it could mean another few minutes of retracing the route you just took, only to fall again.
There were seriously times during this game when I could see where I wanted to get to a few feet in front of me, and Ezio simply wouldn't make it. I tried jumping off of nearby rooftops, parachuting off of other rooftops, but nothing worked. Only until I tried the first way again, that made me Ezio smash his face every single time, only about half a foot to the left, did he finally realize what I was trying to get him to do.
In conclusion, I still like the Assassin's Creed games, primary for their story at this point. I will more likely than not buy the next game as well, just so I can find out what happens next. This game has also caused me to throw my controller across the room and literally yell with frustration more times than any other game I have played, except for maybe Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2. However on the next game I really, sincerely, truly hope that the developers spend a little extra time on the platforming mechanics. It feels like they have barely been tweaked since the first game came out years ago, and they could do with a little tune up.
The story also gets a bit more flushed out while at the same time keeping players very in the dark about what is actually going on, which I very much enjoy. I like good sci-fi mystery stories that reveal the plot little by little, teasing you with small pieces of the story and then finally revealing it (or most of it) at the end. So I'm hoping that they offer a bit more explanation in the next game, as the ending of Brotherhood gives me a lot more questions.
Now for what I didn't like, which is the same thing I didn't like in any of the previous Assassin's Creed games, the movement and platforming controls. Assassin's Creed puts you in the role of a powerful high ranking assassin, in this case his name is Ezio Auditore da Firenze, and you are able to climb buildings, leap rooftops, scale walls, dive off of high perches, all with ease and grace.
At least you are supposed to.
I want to start off by saying that I consider myself a good gamer. I have many years of experience with platformers especially, and I have also played and beaten the two previous Assassin's Creed games, so I am well versed in the control scheme of the game. That being said, either I am not as good of a gamer as I thought I was, the developers need to put a bit more work into their controls, or Ezio might be getting some brain damage from all the times I've gotten him to fall off of buildings.
It ranged from something as simple as walking through a crowd of people, to jumping across rooftops. Both of those and everything in between, for me, featured Ezio falling over, or jumping the entirely wrong direction, or simply not moving for more than half the times I tried to accomplish something.
Here's some examples:
(Now with hastily drawn illustrations!)
There were seriously times during this game when I could see where I wanted to get to a few feet in front of me, and Ezio simply wouldn't make it. I tried jumping off of nearby rooftops, parachuting off of other rooftops, but nothing worked. Only until I tried the first way again, that made me Ezio smash his face every single time, only about half a foot to the left, did he finally realize what I was trying to get him to do.
In conclusion, I still like the Assassin's Creed games, primary for their story at this point. I will more likely than not buy the next game as well, just so I can find out what happens next. This game has also caused me to throw my controller across the room and literally yell with frustration more times than any other game I have played, except for maybe Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2. However on the next game I really, sincerely, truly hope that the developers spend a little extra time on the platforming mechanics. It feels like they have barely been tweaked since the first game came out years ago, and they could do with a little tune up.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)