Welcome to "And Here's Why", a blog where I randomly rant about topics dear to me: Gaming, Movies, Comic Books or Superheroes (to name a few). Reviews, thoughts, musings, anything that springs to mind, really. Feel free to comment on anything, or everything!
Did a very quick doodle before heading out. I've finally gotten around to playing Divinity: Original Sin. And dang, really enjoying it! So dialogue heavy. Great rp! And you can talk to rats and other animals?! If only I'd known about that skill when I rolled my knightly toon! #RPG #divinityoriginalsin
We're all gamers... right guys? Problems with gender in games
Gaming, as a medium, has matured. Gaming has grown to become a considerable industry that has achieved emancipation and has shaken off the yoke of the stigma’s that scarred it before. Gender is no longer an issue insofar as the acceptance that an almost equal amount of the player base consists of females. At least, if the data from institutions such as the ESA can be believed.
45% of gamers are female, mentions the 2013 Video Game Industry Report. A percentage that has often been mobilized to equally empower the feminist movement calling for the emancipation of female gamers. But honestly, what do these numbers reveal? Hardly anything… And here’s why:
(Image by Entertainment Software Association)
These numbers have been rightfully scrutinized by researchers such as Jenson and de Castell, pointing out terminological magic trick that hides under its surface. That very same report equally regards puzzles, board games, game shows, trivia and card games as “online games”. Mind you, this is not a terminological fight about the definition of “games”, this is however a call for a critical review of the way these categories impact the results of the report. Basically, due to the inclusion of the aforementioned games, literally everyone has just been granted the status of “gamer”. Naturally this accounts for the perceived gender equality and surprisingly high average age of 30. What this report ends up doing is revealing that, in one way or another, everyone is a gamer.
So, what’s the big deal? As Jenson and de Castell point out, this trick -let’s be honest, it’s just a creative way of handling quantitative data- actually hides any remaining problems concerning gender in games. Not only do these industry reports systematically fail to report on itself, instead of rehashing numbers about markets and sales, it constructs gamer markets in a very top-down way that pays no attention to the way in which players interact with the medium. Ironically, this top-down construction of players is a critique that has often been (rightfully) aimed at feminist game studies, while one could argue it should equally be directed at the industry itself.
Not only is the games industry subject to a distinctly male culture, there is a poignant underrepresentation of women on the workfloor. To put a number on it, a research by Lizzie Haines in 2008 estimated the amount of women active in the video games industry at a mere 4%. These numbers, even though they are dated, serve to show the problematic nature of the issue. How should this be tackled then, quotas, more women in the workforce? It might not be that simple. Other researchers pointed to a horizontal segregation within the industry, meaning that most women, if at all working in the games sector, were working outside of creative functions that have any control over the media texts produced. These jobs mainly include marketing and HR.
(Image by Valve Software)
Right, so is it a matter of hiring more women for specific functions such as programming and design? Not quite. Quotas are a prickly subject and blindly following damages the integrity of both the company and the applicant. A solution could be found in both cooperation with educational institutions and sensitization of employers. Since research has shown that employers are more likely to promote male employees, one might question if employers show an equal bias when reviewing the skills of female applicants. Furthermore, the IT and technology sector falls prey to the same gender bias as the games industry, and hardly any female students subscribe to the respective courses.
What this shows is that at the source of the gender equality are discourses and socially constructed behaviors that serve as barriers of entry for women. Media literacy could therefore be seen as a possible approach to rekindle the awareness of problems regarding gender in games. These media literacy initiatives could consider stimulating cooperation between the industry and education sensitizing producers, educators, students and parents to the way in which gender as a socially constructed concept interacts with gaming as a medium.
It remains important to remain mindful of the specificity of gaming as a medium when considering gender. Not every player interacts with the medium in the same way, furthermore, the medium itself is highly susceptible to co-authorship or notions of produsers. What is crucial is that producers of games are aware of this key feature of the product they create, and the impact it has on the plurality of messages one text can entail. Mikula, for example, highlights the way in which Lara Croft can both be objectivized by some gamers through nudity mods, and be turned into a gay and female empowerment heroine by others. This contradiction does not mean that one of these readings is inherently wrong, in fact, it reveals the importance of being mindful of the ways in which videogame players both consume and create the images on screen.
(Character and image by Tigersan)
To further elaborate on what I see as open game design, I’d like to put forward a controversial case: Saints Row 2. There’s so much wrong with this game, but so much good regarding gender and identity. What strikes me as exemplary in SR2 is the fact that the character creation is basically limitless, allowing you to genderbend, and basically create any possible virtual self. You can go extremely fat, or dangerously thin, facial hair options are not gated by gender selection and neither are voices. Besides the character creator, SR2 is a sandbox game that allows for many possible (subversive) playstyles. To me, open game design and gender neutral games, could take a lot from Saints Row 2.
In conclusion, I argue for more gender neutral game design that is open, allowing many possible representations of player characters and playstyles. I am explicitly (or throughout this post rather implicitly) arguing against Girl Games. These Girl Games, seen in light of a consideration of the ways in which players interact with the medium, can in a way be seen as a detriment to the empowerment of female gamers. Not only do these games construct the market of female gamers in a very top-down manner, based on stereotypes and discourses on femininity in society, they further segregate the player demographic. They further delineate the ways in which girls game, and create a binary opposition between specifically female-oriented games and the rest of the industry. These segregations, in my opinion, can never lead to equality or emancipation, as there’s no such thing as equality in difference.
What is most important is sensitizing society on the way in which gender is socially constructed, and the way in which this further structures the possibilities presented to different groups. Unless actions are undertaken to resist further gendering of technology and ICT, for example by informing girls at a young age and promoting female role models in order to make them more visible, inequality will persist. It is key that the cultural capital (specifically cultural capital regarding video games and ICT) of women is strengthened in order for women to be able to apply this accumulated capital and enter the game industry workforce. The accumulation of cultural capital takes time, however, which makes it all the more important to address gender stereotypes and the gendering of media and toys at a young age, while sensitizing influential actors such as educators and parents on the topic.
ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION. Essential facts about the computer and video game industry 2013.
JENSON (Jennifer), DE CASTELL (Suzanne). Her Own Boss: Gender and the Pursuit of Incompetent Play.
HAINES (Lizzie). Why are there so few women in games?
MIKULA (Maja). Gender and Videogames: the political valency of Lara Croft, in Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies.
PRESCOTT (Julie), BOGG (Jan). Segregation in a Male-Dominated Industry: Women Working in the Computer Games Industry, in International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology
Several weeks ago I wrote a blogpost about the existence of WoW-killers in the MMORPG genre, and argued that both the nature of the term and the age of the game strengthened the position of World of Warcraft within the MMORPG market. I did not mention any theories to further these observations, however, and it’s time to set that right.
The past few weeks have allowed me to both somewhat distance myself from my previous post, which urges me to make some adjustments to the statements in the mentioned post, and here’s why…
Revisiting the term WoW-killer
A few weeks ago I stated that the WoW-killer term in itself is the cause of perverse effects, solidifying its market position and casting it as the standard for the genre. This is, however, somewhat exaggerated. Firstly, one could argue that there is no wrong in having a standard, in fact, it is what makes competition possible. In order to allow the market to be healthy and innovative, competition and the action and reaction of actors within the market, is required. Secondly, there is no rigid standard against which all other actors compete, in the case of World of Warcraft, it is very noticeable that the game itself is actively competing with other actors such as Guild Wars 2, implementing their innovations within its own framework. As such, the argument that the use of the term would encourage stagnation within the genre, is false.
WoW and the life of the player
What should be expanded, however, is the interaction between WoW and the players. As such, I still think there is value in focusing more on the way players interact with the game, than looking for answers within the game itself. In the previous post, I argued that the narratives that were created by players over a large period of time were the strength of the game, and part of what has made it sustain its position for so long. I still somewhat believe this to be true, however, my thoughts on the subject have changed by encountering new theories. In “Media, Place and Mobility”, Shaun Moores discusses place, by referring to theories of Tuan, as space being given meaning and value through repeated interaction. Place, then, becomes a space where we feel familiar and at home. This can be any possible material or immaterial location. The vast virtual environments of MMORPG’s equally serve as places for the players interacting with it.
Important factors to be considered in the creation of place are routine interaction and time. It is only through repetition that place is created, that meaning is endowed to space, and that we create a homely environment for ourselves. The MMO genre plays right into this. By repeatedly logging into the same character screens, by engaging the player in repetitive forms of interaction with the environment and zones through quests, and by structuring dungeon encounters around the memorization of sequences and routine choreographies, place is created over time.
As was mentioned in the previous post, World of Warcraft has a considerable edge over new competitors entering the market, by having existed and served as a place for players for over 7 years. It seems therefore likely that, once this creation of place has taken root, it only strengthens itself over time.
Dynamic events and Guild Wars 2
Above I have argued that the traditional quest system actually served to strengthen the creation of place in MMO’s, by engaging the player in a routine interaction with the environment, which is a crucial part of the creation of place. Interestingly however, the genre has been nudged away from this traditional system by the introduction of dynamic events such as those in Guild Wars 2. The question could be raised then, if this hamstrings the ability of Guild Wars 2 to compete over a longer period of time. How would this change the nature in which place is created within MMO’s?
Guild Wars 2 considers dynamic events to be the core content of its virtual world, but these events are striving away from repetition, towards continually changing experiences. As such it endeavors to create a living breathing world, but in doing so, it creates a world that seeks to abolish routine and repetition in its content. This philosophy is equally present in its content releases, which have been amped up in speed since release to arrive on a bi-weekly basis, and offer a “living story” to the players. Whether this core structure of the game will have any consequences for its lifespan remains to be seen, but adjustments are slowly trickling in. More persistent content updates have been taken into consideration, and although dynamic events abolish repetition, routine remains a large part of the game mechanics through the farming of rare resources and meta-events.
Still, I would conclude that there is not enough focus on the creation of space within Guild Wars 2 compared to World of Warcraft. There are of course the home instances, which should be the pinnacle of place for the player within the game, but it is scarcely utilized to full effect. There is no consideration for the time and repetition it takes to make space a place, and as such the home instance remains largely abandoned by players. Obviously, tying more quests to the home instance to force the player to interact with this environment and make it her or his own would be key, but this requires some form of traditional questing as dynamic events to date occur anywhere but in the home instances. The racial cities as well have no means to become a place built into the game, and are abandoned as a possible setting ¼ into the game’s personal story. Lastly, this personal story is a covered up way to keep traditional quests in some shape or form in the game, showing a certain awareness on Arenanet’s part regarding their use. However, this personal story is far too short to encompass a large enough amount of time for place to be created. Interactions within the Personal Story are scarce and fragmented, and (besides the dynamic events) fail to shape a coherent narrative for the different zones.
Even though I very much like the dynamic events, I feel traditional questing systems remain an important part of the MMO genre, a genre that has actors rely for a large part on player’s creation of place to remain relevant and competitive. As such, WoW-killers can and probably will exist, but it is largely a matter of place, and time.
The militarized society, Paranorman, and anticipating the apocalypse
The militarized society is a very interesting concept, I feel, since it encapsulates in a clear way the discourse within which many pop culture media texts can be situated. Games such as Call of Duty and Battlefield serve this militarization, not just within American borders, but within the entire international videogame market. Obviously, we are not fighting the actual wars, securing the American conquest of the Middle-East. Nonetheless, we are enforcing American domination of its virtual representation. Moreover, we are legitimizing American military values through these games by conducting missions of strategic (American) importance or by reproducing American meanings of military values. Movies equally serve this discourse by casting the military as a courageous organization vital to the success of the hero or the survival of humankind.
This leads to the validation of the military as an important part of society which is, of course, hardly self-evident. In fact, one might try to further sketch out this discourse by linking this created admiration for the military and its tools of destruction with the ongoing tensions regarding gun control. In doing so, we can begin to grasp the possible interests these media texts serve on a larger scale.
Regardless, violence plays a huge part in society today. This leads to an interesting fallacy in the zombie myth as shown in Paranorman. If you have not seen the movie, and wish to avoid spoilers, stop reading here.
Halfway through the movie, zombies attack the town. However, contrary to the customs of zombie mythology, the zombies are not the aggressors in the battle that ensues. Since the threat of a zombie attack is deeply rooted in the town’s cultural heritage, their actions towards zombies have taken a form that is very different from what we would expect to see. While the zombies themselves (dating their living life back several centuries) are stunned by the aggressive sights and sounds of modern times, the villagers go berserk and take up arms against the dead. Eventually the zombies flee the scene, but the way in which the villagers revel in the chance to battle the undead and face the apocalypse begs further reflection.
One can scarcely miss the connection I’m trying to make between the pervasiveness of an eventual zombie apocalypse in Paranorman’s cultural heritage, that same pervasiveness of military action and violence in our own society, and how these have (or might have) changed the ways in which we (might) behave. In fact, we are no less afraid of the apocalypse than the villagers in Paranorman. We are equally enthralled by it. We are perverted by the advent of our demise, building houses that might sustain zombie attacks, thinking out the best strategy to survive an apocalypse, building shelters in our backyards in case of a nuclear holocaust, and stocking homes with weapons in case of terrorist attacks. In doing so, we are legitimizing this weird state of being, while instead we should actively seek to reject it.
And yet we are enticed by the coming of many possible ends, ends that should never exist in the first place. This urges us to be very critical of the texts we consume, and how we consume them, while being well aware of the many way in which one text might be read. It necessitates a systematic analysis of its meaning, and the interests served by conveying it. Only then can we be truly critical of any text we encounter.
Wow… Just WoW: Considering the existence of WoW-killers.
When it comes to genres, I consider myself a pretty open minded gamer. As such, my Steam library is chock-full of many different games. However, as I mentioned in a previous blog post, MMO’s have since long held a special place in my heart. Ofttimes I look forward to new titles with great anticipation, but never is this more true than with MMO’s. As a previous WoW-player, I am not unaware of the burden many new MMO’s face being systematically compared to World of Warcraft. Moreover, after the release of WoW, new titles have often been referred to as WoW-killers, branding them as the successors to the most popular MMO at this time. However, many new MMO’s have come and gone since then, and none have managed to snuff out WoW’s light. Why, I wonder? In line with the expression “Don’t hate the player, hate the game”, it might actually serve us best to reverse this saying. Instead of analyzing the game in search of an answer, we ought to focus on the players. And here’s why…
The problematic nature of the WoW-killer term
Two problems can be identified regarding the use of the term “WoW-killer”, firstly, it only serves to solidify the market position the game holds. It does this rhetorically by (unwillingly) casting the game as the market standard. As such, this term is counterproductive for the genre, since it forces anyone acting within it to use World of Warcraft as a touchstone and antagonize it as the opponent to beat. This furthermore increases the life of WoW immensely, by rhetorically coupling it with the emergence of every new game, allowing World of Warcraft to transcend the limits of its own generation while dragging every new title into the never-ending status quo of the genre.
Secondly, this term is wholly false and artificial. It serves no use in itself barring the perverse effects it has on the game and the genre. World of Warcraft has been allowed to enter a realm where no other game seems able to follow, seemingly by a combination of sheer luck and admirable design skill.
Penetrating the lives of the players
A common line when discussing new MMO’s is their lack of content when compared to World of Warcraft. I do not wish to lend any credibility to this statement, but its occurrence is indicative of another point that requires discussion. On the surface it, again, only regards the game itself. It serves us best to turn this statement back to the player. When one argues a lack of content in MMO’s compared to WoW, one might not be arguing this superficial statement but his or her actual experience of this content. In fact, it is the player experience, often shared with thousands of other players, that to me defines the MMO genre. Be it the narrative the player creates for his or her avatar, or the narrative created while exploring a dungeon, interacting with guild members and friends. This is furthermore what complicates any comparison between World of Warcraft and a so called WoW-killer: players have been weaving these personal narratives and experiences for 7 years.
These 7 years of WoW’s existence effectively ties the game to the lives of its players, not just within the virtual environment, but even outside of it. Narratives have not solely been created on a micro level with events occurring within the game, but also on a macro level with the game itself. Moreover, Blizzard has made use of this by solidifying the macro level narrative created by players through the use of real life events such as BlizzCon, allowing the company to penetrate the lives of its players and materialize itself outside of the virtual space it primarily inhabits. Whether one wills it or not, no other company or game might ever be able to accomplish such an involvement in players’ lives over such a large amount of time, rendering the term WoW-killer pointless.
In fact, there might never be a WoW-killer as long as the term endures.
Winnie the Pilgrim: Colonist discourse in Pooh’s Heffalump Movie
It’s a nice feeling to visit the Hundred Acre Woods after a long day, and to strip off the exhaustion and stress while enjoying the peaceful escapades of Pooh and company. What if they’re not so peaceful, after all? When a trumpeting sound echoes through the woods, Pooh, Tigger and Piglet seek Rabbit for advice. A Heffalump, he says, is amongst them, and they have to catch it. Wait, Winnie, where are you going with that rope and butterfly net? An expedition? Hold on a sec-
“In the name of the Hundred Acre Woods, I capture you!” they cry out in tune, throwing their lassos at a barrel with the portrait of a pink elephant sketched onto it.
This film just took a questionable turn, I pondered, and here’s why…
The myth of the adventurous expedition, and demonization of the other
The whole narrative of the film, one could argue, is based around the expedition the inhabitants of the Hundred Acre Woods undertake in order to capture a Heffalump. An adventurous task, that does not escape the admiration of Roo, who would happily join them but is sadly denied of such an expedition due to his age and the possible dangers it might entail. This danger is materialized through the demonization of the Heffalump in a song sung by the explorers, representing the creature as something gigantesque, cruel, and devoid of reason. It destroys, wreaks havoc, and seems to enjoy every bit of it. Roo doesn’t take no for an answer and, accordingly, takes on a major role within the flick. One could furthermore argue that the incompetence of the “adults” is implied through their clumsiness while handling ropes and the hyperbolic nature of their description of the Heffalump, while picturing Roo more capable in handling the equipment. As such, Roo sets out on his own to capture a Heffalump.
These creatures live in a different part of the woods, separated by a long wooden fence. There is a distinct difference between the two worlds on each side, namely, the world of the Heffalump seems distorted and dark. The woods are explicitly pictured as being dangerous and strange to the explorers, filled with treacherous cliffs, crooked tree trunks and traps. It in no way resembles to the picturesque landscape that envelops the homes of Winnie and his friends, let alone a home to any possible creature. This is, in a few words, the outset of the story, which casts Winnie, Roo, and their friends as intrepid explorers, while representing Heffalump Hollow as uncharted and dangerous territory.
The struggle with an imperialistic ideology
Within Huffalump Hollow, Roo eventually manages to capture a Heffalump, not much older than himself. The Heffalump, henceforth referred to as Lumpy, shows signs of a naïve and uncorrupted nature, gleefully going about his business. Even when Roo captures him by throwing the rope over his head, he does not seem to comprehend the implications of the game in which he is engaging. He is the other, living within by our standards uninhabitable territory, while Roo shows signs of the imperialist ideology bestowed upon him by “Western civilization”. Even though he is a child, he shows clear signs of the same ideology, setting out to accomplish the same goal as the adults. The fact that the characters explicitly claim the Heffalump, the other, in the name of the Hundred Acre Woods, similar to the claim to land by imperialist explorers only serves to strengthen the reference to this ideology.
Things get interesting, however, the longer Roo interacts with the Heffalump. As my girlfriend pointed out during our discussion on the same subject, there comes a point in the film where Roo actively starts to question the ideology imprinted upon him. As Roo and Lumpy reach the fence separating both worlds, Lumpy expresses a same demonization of the inhabitants of the Hundred Acre Woods, the characters we know so well. The description of Piglet as a scary monster helps Roo realize the irrational and erroneous nature of the way they perceive eachother. However, even though Roo realizes they both perceive eachother in a wrong way, Lumpy remains captured in Roo’s eyes. And he still expresses a wish to show Lumpy to his friends in order to show off his conquest to the adults he seeks to prove wrong, which is no different than how a game hunter would flaunt his prize in order to gain admiration from his peers. There is still a distinct inequality present between Lumpy and Roo, not only regarding their habitat, but also regarding their relation to eachother.
Integrating Lumpy in Pooh society
This inequality persists even as the relationship between Lumpy and Roo grows. One could argue that Lumpy’s character is consistently expanded upon, showing off the similarities between him and Roo. But it is important to take note of the way in which this is presented. Namely, we do not reach a certain conclusion that expresses a general similarity between the Heffalumps (primitives) and the Pooh characters (explorers). They are represented as being, in the end, similar to “us”. This, although it might appear similar, is a crucial difference. This rhetoric mainly empowers the Pooh characters with the ability to decide on the acceptance of the others. It does not express any form of unity in difference, or a general similarity representing them as all being animals. They are integrated within Pooh’s society, which gives the upper hand to the society of the Hundred Acre Woods, obviously, since there is no reference to any dwelling or society the Heffalumps inhabit. They are merely integrated, swallowed into the “mainstream”.
Furthermore, there is a clear correction of the demonization of the Heffalump that takes place at the end of the movie, however this can again be seen as problematic. Not only does the film drag the spectator along in this ungrounded representation of the Heffalump as a destructive creature, by casting it in situations that reflect that very nature, and omitting the face of the Heffalump mother whenever she enters the frame. They seem to accept the Heffalump merely based on its usefulness within their society, as Mama Heffalump saves Roo from a dangerous trap thanks to her size, trunk and quite frankly all of the exterior characteristics they so feared in the Heffalump to begin with. There is no acceptance of the Heffalump based on who they really are. Furthermore, in the end credits, other Heffalumps are shown taking note of Rabbit’s teachings on farming. This again shows the integration of the Heffalumps into Pooh’s society, which inherently implies an inequality in power. This is even more true when it is Rabbit who is teaching Heffalumps how to improve their agriculture. There is, however, no sign of any visit to Heffalump Hollow by Rabbit, Pooh, Roo or any of the other characters.
A plurality of possible readings
Obviously, many different readings of the same text are plausible, and every reading can again be contested. However, do take note that there are possibilities for the author of a certain text to fix meaning or rather attempt to through the use of a certain montage, rhetoric techniques or standardization. This highlights the importance I wish to underline of not what conclusion is given to a certain discourse, but how it is presented. In any case, it serves one well to scrutinize any given text, I brought this up in an earlier post regarding videogames, and how the interactivity might change the way we perceive the messages within. This is however equally true for films and children’s cartoons that present themselves to us under the guise of innocence.
Distancing others: How we are isolating ourselves from the world
As I finished up the short piece about the limits of interaction in virtual worlds a few days ago, the subject remained in the back of my mind. I will be the first to admit that this piece merely scratched the surface, and was terribly scattered and unfocused, however, the thought that the other in these worlds is being demoted to serve as a tool in the eyes of the player stayed with me. In the aforementioned piece I pointed to individualism as a cause of these perverse effects, however in this one I want to take it one step further in a more focused manner. I wish to shine light on the distantiation that, I feel, is legion in society today. We are distanced from a great many things, which in turn transforms our interactions. Individualism and the turn to the self, is one part of this, as are the media. They effectively serve to reinforce this self-centered frame of mind, and here’s why…
As a disclaimer I’ll again point to the fact that this piece is merely a summary of my opinions on the subject.
Travelers through space and time
The media, more specifically media such as television and games, serve as tools to mobilize human beings in space and time. As Thompson put it, we have become adept time travelers, being able to transport ourselves through the ages in order to witness many different events. In doing so, however, we take our couch and remote control with us. We are traveling within the protected environment of our own home. Thompson mainly stated this in regards to television, however, this is equally true for gaming and the internet. When one looks at the YouTube comments section, one can hardly help but notice how the protective environment within which we travel throughout the web changes the way in which we interact with others. There are no repercussions, no sanctions to perverse behavior as there would be in face to face communication otherwise.
However, before treading too much into the arena of Thompson’s typology of interaction types, let me lay out the three basic types described. Face to face interaction, which has several rules binding the interaction between two or more individuals and defines many tools that can be used to convey meaning. Secondly, there is mediated interaction, for example a telephone call, which again entails a dialogue between people, the existence of rule sets and tools for communication. Thirdly, Thompson defines mediated quasi-interaction, such as the television, which entails a monologue where the producer of the televised message conveys meaning through a one way flow to the viewer. There are, most importantly, no rule sets guiding this form of interaction. The viewer is not required to be attentive, can have a toilet break in the middle of a conversation (read: any possible broadcast), or take a nap. Lastly, Thompson indicates that this typology is hardly exhaustive and many hybrid forms of communication are possible. Due to the internet and digital age, we are experiencing many different hybrid forms of interaction, such as the aforementioned YouTube comments.
Where do they fit in Thompson’s typology? They are partly mediated interaction, surely, as well as mediated quasi-interaction. They entail a communication between a great many people, between the writer and the producer of the video, as well as many possible readers. There is however, contrary to mediated interaction, no rule set binding the dialogue between the participants. There is no imperative to recognize what other participants are saying, or to build upon different arguments during the interaction to reach a certain conclusion. One merely vomits his opinion into the ether with little regard to establish any meaningful interaction in the process. The fact that the individual’s opinion is voiced is prioritized.
The commodification of and distanciation from the other
This hearkens back to what was said in the previous post, the commodification of the other in virtual worlds, as this is equally the cause of this hybrid form of interaction. The protective shield that was mentioned earlier distances us from the others we interact with.
In fact, rather than arguing that we are transported into an illusionary world created by the mediated representations that surround us, I would argue that the rules and behaviors that make up a certain medium are equally transposed outside of its own domain. We do not merely take our protective environment with us when we are transported through time and space within a certain medium, we take our television screen with us wherever we go, distancing and separating us from the world we observe. What perversities arise when the rules that govern interactions in a certain medium are transported to the “real world”? Are the people we interact with on a daily basis equally commodified as those others we encounter in the online world? Is the cashier behind the register merely regarded based on his or her function with respect to the individual, handling merchandise the individual has bought? Is the waiter at a café or restaurant nothing more than the person bringing the order from its point of origin to the table where it is consumed by the individual?
This is where I feel the growing distanciation between the self and others comes in. Do we still take into account the larger whole of the things we encounter? Do we take into account the life of the cashier beyond the register? Or do we lump them together with the food we consume, equally unaware of the way these foodstuffs are produced or grown, what they might have once looked like before they arrived on our plate, before they were transformed into appetizing yet very different commodities. When one finds themselves in front of a shopping rack filled with processed meat, steak, and slices of ham, can one think beyond the packaging and standardized appearance and relate these commodities back to the animal they originate from? Do we escape from the frame of thought that merely views these in relation to their function to feed the individual, in the same way as I pointed in the earlier piece to the way in which we view the others in MMO’s in regards to their function to make the individual reach the end of the dungeon and claim the reward.
Having spent 3 weeks behind a register, I can’t help but feel we hardly look beyond the screen through which we observe the world, and which protects us during the interactions that shape our days. Is it the turn to the self that remains the cause, or do the media equally have a hand in it?
Not so massive: inhabiting enclosures in a virtual world
Either I have been the victim of false advertising, or the virtual communities that effectively support Massively Multiplayer Online Games have themselves undergone a change. Point being, I am not experiencing the often idealized social aspect of these games. Nor have I experienced this in previously visited worlds. In this article, I set out with a question: “Is the social aspect of MMO Games dwindling, and if so, is it but a shadow of what it is advertised to be?” I will seek to give my personal view on this, laying the blame not with the developers themselves, but with the overarching ideology common in society today. The creators, or rather individuals that built these worlds are not the cause, individualism is; and here’s why…
I have, for a long time now, admired the MMO genre for its epic proportions and ability to host interactions between thousands of players at a time, making it possible for the single gamer to share a meaningful experience with many others at the same time. More than any other genre, I feel, the MMO has the ability to generate a widespread feeling of nostalgia among its player base and develop its own history over the course of several years. Ofttimes I noticed how friends, when playing World of Warcraft, expressed this nostalgia while discussing previous events that had taken place in the world during earlier expansions. Moreover, before I actually gained access to these games, I frequently mused on the ability to share the personal narrative a player establishes while playing his own character in an RPG, with others inhabiting the online world.
This social aspect to me, however, remained largely absent in my playthroughs of World of Warcraft, my short stay in Rift, and Guild Wars 2. I felt more akin to an isolated inhabitant of interconnected enclosures within the virtual world than one of many members of an overarching gaming community. Every community is fictitious, as is often claimed, and for the MMO genre this seems no less true. The guilds inhabiting these worlds effectively serve as the aforementioned enclosures. They isolate blocks of players, structure their interaction within their own borders, and only transcend these borders when it suits a purpose dear to either the individual player or guild. The few interactions that occur between players in a PUG (Pick Up Group) rarely exceed the specific purpose of the gathering itself; to complete the dungeon as efficient and quickly as possible. Any interaction that is in discord with this purpose is hence avoided. When one abstracts many of the aspects that seem to grant the MMO genre its status, the Massively in its name quickly evaporates. The interactions of gamers play out within the enclosures that make up the game, and rarely spring up organically throughout the world making it no less similar to cooperative multiplayer games like Borderlands, Left 4 Dead, or Diablo.
The realization that the interactions of players within online worlds were not as broad as I had imagined them to be, and in fact limited by the contexts in which they occur, had been quite sobering. The individualism that, to me, is so pervasive in society has equally penetrated the online world. The interactions of players will not exceed the boundaries they set for themselves unless they are spurred on by the endless array of carrots on sticks that games supply us with. I appreciate the lengths Guild Wars 2 goes to in order to engage players in cooperative interactions, by removing any form of competition between players in the open world, but it is still noticeable that the only way to achieve this behavior is to entice the player with experience and other rewards. This becomes clear in Guild Wars 2’s dungeons, where time-efficiency and personal spoils are sovereign. The only way to leverage this is to join a guild that shares the same attitude as the player, rendering the experience for the player more enjoyable and less frustrating, but reinstating the enclosures players inhabit.
In order to come full circle, it would serve best to paraphrase the question that started this post: “Are Massively Multiplayer Online Games really Massively?” One could scarcely help but notice that I sincerely doubt the scope of multiplayer interactions these games offer, they rather serve to establish smaller enclosures of likeminded players, islands adrift on a vast ocean. Like this ocean, the community centered around the game is equally intangible, equally translucent. It is merely a mosaic made up of smaller entities that touch yet don’t interact with eachother. The question remains, however, unanswered. Is there a lack of interaction noticeable in online games? Do online games cater to the individualist ideology prominent in society today? It is, I think, noticeable that within these online communities, even other players are sadly commodified as tools for the individual to serve his or her own purpose. This, I feel, fundamentally goes against the very grain of multiplayer interaction. The other players in these online worlds are strangely similar to the npc's one encounters in singleplayer games. It would serve us well to be mindful of our interactions with others in these virtual environments, as we are in continuous danger to fall victim to the forms of communication sustained by this medium. We are, protected by the sanctuary that is our personal computer, engaging other players online, however, this security gravely changes how we interact with these others. Such interactions might increasingly become one-sided flows, fragile, and subject to the whims of but one of many participants.
However, I feel that by taking note of the way in which we interact within this medium, we can bridge the enclosures that limit our interactions within these worlds. Effectively transcending the enclosures that make up the virtual space of such online games. This, moreover, is not an effect of a continuous evolution in MMO Game development, but a symptom of the penetration of individualism in today's society.
A person was just trying to argue with me via twitter about the ESA’s statistic that 45% of gamers are women. Please allow me to clear up a few things:
Yes, those statistics include browser and mobile games. Yes, those games statistically have a higher percentage of women players. Yes the...
While working on a (very rushed) paper on the representation of games and gamers in a Flemish newspaper, I frequently quoted the aforementioned statistic of the ESA, stating that it actually disproves the chronic misconception of the gamer as a prepubescent white male. I, like many authors I quoted in the paper to further underwrite my opinion, was convinced that this stereotypical reading of the gamer identity was wrong, and gladly used the ESA's statistic as a tool to legitimize my point. However, it was only near the end of my bout with the subject that I came across a pertinent paper by Jennifer Jenson and Suzanne de Castell that subverted my entire argumentation around the gamer identity. In fact, it opened my eyes to the possible perverse effects of emancipating women and minorities as equal gamers through the use of statistics such as those concocted by the ESA, and here's why.
Jenson and de Castell point to the way in which studies are artificially creating a gender equality in gaming. The question remains if this equality is actually present, or just a side-effect of the broader definition that these studies operate in discussing games. One can argue that it might be wrong to include facebook or smartphone apps as games, which would instantly imply that everyone who's ever launched an angry bird while taking a toilet break is a gamer. I can't help but think that, in defining games so broadly, without taking heed of the many intricacies that distinguish different games from each other, we are guilty of manufacturing the result we wish to see, be it conscious or subconsciously.
The problem with these statistics is, as Jenson and de Castell point out, that women aren't legitimized as part of the gamer demographic. On the contrary, the problematization of gender within the gamer identity is rendered voiceless due to a conceptual shift in defining the medium. As the authors point out, it actually hampers any research regarding gender by putting forward a mirage of gender equality in games. Furthermore, any definition of people playing said games as gamers disregards any interaction of the individuals themselves with the identity bestowed upon them by statistics and scientists. They are merely mobilised to fit the goals of the argumentation in which they are cast, but are thieved of their voice to reflect on the way they themselves identify as a gamer.
One could argue that these statistics only serve to obscure an already clouded topic. As you point out, women have always been a part of the gamer demographic, but in what way? Fron, Fullerton, Ford Morie and Pearce describe female gamers as inhabitants of a virile universe. They are part of it, no doubt about that, but they are equally subjected to male dominance. Merely pointing out a gender equality fails to take note of the way in which females in gamer culture are dominated by what the aforementioned authors describe as a Hegemony of Play. When female gamers cosplay highly sexualised gaming characters they are subjecting themselves to this male dominance and gaze. There are still many gender related topics that should be excavated more thoroughly in game studies, and these concocted statistics only disprove the urgency of gender in games.
Source:
Jenson J., de Castell S. Her own Boss: Gender and the Pursuit of Incompetent Play, 2005.
Fron J., Fullerton T., Ford Morie J., Pearce C. The Hegemony of Play, 2007.
The majority of people hating on MOS are nostalgic old Donnerites, people too stupid to realize Marvel and DC are two different companies, people who have never read a comic, and people who went into movie theaters with VERY high expectations thinking they were going to see a COMEDY because their brains have been saturated with comedic cartoon "super"heroes for the past 5 years. The film was fine.
Hi gitc4ever, thanks for taking the time to respond to my Man of Steel review.
I have to disagree with your categorization of me as an old Donnerite, since I sadly haven’t watched his movies yet. I do, though, have them on my shelf ready to be viewed in the future.
I would further argue that I do understand there is a distinction between both companies and their heroes. Let there also be no doubt that I have read comics before. I would even go as far as to say that this was the cause of the high expectations with which I entered the cinema upon viewing Man of Steel. I wanted to see the same depth of character I saw in the representation of the character in the Birthright series. The relation between Jonathan and Clark was but a shadow of what had been done in that same series, and equally lacking in finesse.
I did not anticipate watching a comedy. I wanted to see Clark Kent struggle with his identity and responsibilities. I wanted to see him help people around the world. Help others who experience the same struggle find their way and place in the world. That is what made the Africa section in Brithright so stunning. It humanized the character, it didn’t underline the Americanness that was so present in the character’s history. That progress made in later stories was erased in Man of Steel.
I want to see Clark Kent, the real Superman, step up to the task of wearing the costume and showing his powers to the world. Remember how Russel Crowe, who got barely less screentime than Superman himself, said the human race would “stumble and fall but eventually join Superman in the sun?" That is how the beginning of the character should have felt. Instead of stumbling, he bulldozed walls while fighting his way through redundant action sequences. Instead of falling, he crashed into the scenery without any regard for bystanders.
I wanted to see Clark confronted by his naivety in thinking he could protect the entire planet. I wanted to see him struggle with the limits of his seemingly limitless abilities. I wanted to see an alien character struggle with his heritage and loss of place in a world that is hostile towards the unknown, towards him, regardless of intentions. I wanted to see the questions this raises when the character, regardless of cape or costume, embodies our human (not American) values more and better than any real human can.
That is what makes the character great, and what makes the contrast between Batman and Superman all the more interesting. That is why these two characters in my opinion raise the possibilities of DC Comics’ universe far above that of Marvel’s.
The painful lack of these elements that make the character so rich is why Man of Steel did not exceed fine. Fine as you so eloquently put it is why this movie is not good. Why it does not escape mediocrity. That is why Man of Steel is just as fine as any other summer blockbuster is fine. It did what it set out to do: blare out high pitched screeches and incessantly vomit destruction onto the screen untill all senses are utterly numbed.
That is how I feel, at the risk in sounding like Theodor Adorno writing movie reviews.
No movie should aspire to mediocrity. No film should settle for fine.
Tell me, honestly, if you are so critical of the saturation of comedic superheroes in cartoons; why does the standardization regarding action movies not bother you? Why do you not feel that this equally dumbs down the character for the purposes the genre dictates?
I for one, do not feel that the content should submit to the dictatorship of the medium or any form of genre or standardization.
If this truly was a fine Superman movie, where was Superman? I merely saw a cowboy in a Superman costume.
I will say, though, that I take issue with some of your critique. Towards the beginning you point to how games require a player to play it in order to constitute and take part in its reproduction of ideology, which you opposed to film which simply relays ideology to the viewer. This falls into another oft-repeated truism about games, that games are active media while cinema is passive media, of which we should remain critical. Without going to say that films are as rule-bound as games, they require active and attentive viewers just as games require active and attentive players in order to make meaning. Just as turning away from a film undermines the way a film puts a viewer into relationship with ideology, so the various kinds of “turning away" from video games short circuit that relationship. The material of both the film and the game remains unchanged.
Hi, and thanks for your reply! You raise some excellent points, and I will try to nuance and correct my view accordingly. You are absolutely right in pointing out the film is hardly a passive activity. I do feel however that gaming is much more based on an interaction between the player and the game. You are equally right in mentioning the fact that similar ways of resistance are possible when playing games. The player can simple look away, shut off the game, or choose not to play the game at all. Moreover, the player can choose to cheat his way through and pay no heed to any of the rules that somehow limit the interaction and experience.
However, where I feel it differs is in the way the player is not a viewer, as in film, but a participant in the scene. The game acts as a director, steering the player in the way it wants the scene to play out. Take after take, or reload after reload, the game is forcing to materialize its ideology within the game. Thusly, I feel there is a huge difference in the way we experience film and gaming, however the essence of it, the content as McLuhan puts it, remains the same. We’re just no longer a spectator, actively decoding the texts we encounter, but are participants directed by the game within the virtual world.
I’m also not entirely behind the McLuhan you use in this post. The progressive narrative it supports is one I’m generally opposed to because in some ways I think it lends itself to a technological determinism but more pressingly it ignores games’ complex and multi-threaded history. Huizinga can be a guide for us in understanding games as a medium, which he situates as a pre-cultural activity that is foundational to civilization. The fact also that the particular technology used in video games is more closely related to military simulation and automated AA-gun controllers than anything like cinema complicates the application of McLuhan to video games.
Thanks for suggesting Huizinga, whom I’ve never read, but look forward to reading. I agree that the quote from McLuhan does not wholly encompass the history of games, and the many contexts that influenced it. In fact, the many relations existing between the gaming industry and the military is one of the reasons to be mindful of the possible consequences of this relationship. However, to plead in favor of quoting McLuhan; in doing so I wish to point out that there is a link between different media, and as such, between gaming and other audiovisual media coming before it like film and television. What is communicated, I feel, is no different than what is communicated through film, it is merely the manner in which it is communicated that changed and intensified this process. In this way, the controls serve the way games seek to intensify the interaction, similar to the buttons on a telephone.
I’m very hesitant to point to something like Civilization V as a game that opens video game ideology to critique. You point specifically to how multiple victory conditions opens the player to consider the various values of the game’s rules and assess those rules as simulations of the general process of statecraft, but the game never really opens victory conditions in general to critique. It presents statecraft as if its goal was the domination of others, whether that domination takes the form of science, culture, or warfare. It presents that domination as primarily a process of logistics. There’s a lot of ideology in Civilization, and I recommend checking out Alexander Galloway’s work on the subject.
Again, you are right in pointing out the flaws in my view on Civilization, the game doesn't, like you point out, scrutinize any of the victory conditions. In fact one could say it embodies a very Modernist ideology in suggesting progress is undoubtedly an improvement. I’ll take your advice to heart and look up Galloway’s take on the subject. Thanks a lot for the recommendations and reply! I hope it helped nuance my vision somewhat, and as mentioned above, corrected it where necessary!
Games playing you playing games: how rules structure our behavior
For a recent paper I wrote about how Modern Warfare Shooters legitimize American foreign policy. It allowed me to delve into the way a game’s rules influence our behavior in the virtual worlds we inhabit. It had been the first time I actually took note of this inherent characteristic of the medium, and it intrigued me deeply.
In this post, I will rephrase my thoughts on rules in games and the structuring of the player’s behavior, and give a very short example of the limitations and opportunities this offers. In this way, I try to challenge the idea that games offer players freedom and agency within a virtual environment. The player is not as free and creative as is commonly presumed, and here’s why…
Games within social contexts
The crux of this whole idea is the way ideology in games influence our own perception of the world; an often disliked and criticized opinion, I’m sure. However, one has to take note of the fact that cultural products are never created in a vacuum, free of political or economic influences. There is nothing inherently different about cultural products that allows them to transcend the social contexts we live in. They too bear the marks of the society that conceived them, and arming ourselves with this knowledge, we can check the influence they wield over us. As Hesmondhalgh argued in The Culture Industries, how far this influence goes can be contested, but whether it is there cannot.
This is, again, very important to the theme of this article. What I try to underline is the way gaming is an inherently different medium from the ones that precede it, not in what it does, but how it does it. As Marshall McLuhan puts it, the content of every medium is always a previous one. As such, one can argue that the content of gaming is film. This idea coincides with the complimentary nature of media. They do not substitute each other; instead, they re-specialize, converge and build upon one another. Gaming is not an entirely different medium, it takes the essence of its forefathers and amplifies it. This is where the nature of games as a form of rule-based interaction comes in.
Rules structuring behavior
I have argued that cultural products are part of a larger context and influence our way of seeing the world through their representation of it, but how do the rules of games figure into all this? When watching a movie, a person can resist its influence and challenge its discourse by turning away, talking to others nearby, or shutting him or herself off by closing the eyes. The movie will continue regardless of the actions taken by the viewer. Games do not. If the player at one point breaks the interaction, the conversation stops, pauses, until the gamer resumes play. Furthermore, in order to progress through the game, the gamer has to subject him or herself to the rules of the game. The important difference to be made here between film and gaming is that with the former, the film implores the viewer to take in its ideology, whereas gaming forces the player to act out its ideology. This poses concerns regarding the agency of the player and the manner in which the influence of ideology in games can be resisted. How different do we experience representations in games if we are forced to repeatedly carry out what the rules prescribe us to do?
It has often been argued that games and their interactive nature do not impose a strict ideology upon us, given the way in which players can creatively manipulate their environment in ways unforeseen by the developers or game itself. This is what the term “emergence” in Gonzalo Frasca’s Play The Message entails. However, I seek to debunk this idea. The player is only as creative as is allowed by the rules programmed into the game. When gamers’ creativity goes beyond the boundaries set by developers, emergence turns to exploits and the gamers are sanctioned by the developer as executive to the rules. If the rules did not program the player’s ability to swim, the player can’t swim. If the rules don’t allow the player to jump, the player can’t jump. As such, the actions of the player within the virtual world are always within the boundaries of programming, and the player’s creativity will always be checked by the rules surveying the player’s behavior.
Players reproducing ideology
Within this frame of thought, I scrutinized the way in which games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and America’s Army force the player to enact objectives coated in American military ideology. Call of Duty, in one of its missions, puts the player behind the weapon of a stealth fighter raining down precision projectiles on terrorists entrenched in a small village. Civilians, as is often the case in American cultural products involving military technology, are absent; even though the setting is clearly a once inhabited town. The player’s actions and violence is clean and effective with only military casualties as a result. Violence, mayhem, destruction; it’s all pasteurized, as Marcus Power (2007) effectively puts it, into a clean representation of efficient “modern” warfare.
America’s Army goes even further in actually training gamers to uphold the standards of the American military. Failure to uphold these standards or resistance against the ideology enforced by the game results in negative points or actual virtual sanctioning imprinted on the avatar of the player, being either a ban from the game or spending time in a virtual cell. I do not mean to imply that these games radically change our view of the world, I merely ask how long it takes before prolonged exposure to their discourse renders us numb to the political message these games clearly carry.
Ambivalence of rules
Obviously, all is not unilateral or one-sided. Rules structure our behavior, yet this does not simply mean we are more easily influenced by the game’s discourse; rules can equally breed critical thinking. A game like Civilization V, which I’ve recently picked up again, serves as an accurate example. The game carries rules like any other, but these rules serve as a framework within which the player can reflect upon the way the game simulates the real world. Within the game, the player takes on the role of a civilization and tries his hand at a large amount of victories. The game offers not one linear objective but several and the player is invited to reflect upon the differences between them within the rules of the game. Expanding into different territories might be one way to victory, but staying small and building up culture is equally viable. The new rules surrounding the cultural victory serve as an even better example. In Brave New World, the player will be able to delve up archeological sites within the borders of other civilizations not unlike the real world (the Elgin Marbles). The player can as such extract cultural riches from other’s soil at the cost of diplomatic penalties. The game thus prompts the player to consider his actions, to take into account the way in which these influence the behavior of other civilizations and the diplomatic landscape of the virtual world.
Clearly, the effects of rules structuring our behavior in games is, parallel to the influence exerted by cultural products, complex and ambivalent; however the simple fact that they structure our behavior regardless is undeniable. To ask how this influences the way we interact with ideology in games is, to me, an intriguing and topical question to which the answer remains unclear. What is certain however is that the best way to check the discourse of cultural products is to arm oneself with the knowledge that these products themselves originated within a larger context. Analyze the way in which a product reproduces the dominant ideology of its society, and take heed of the fact that entertainment does not exclude political messages from a product.
Play is political.
Cited works
MCLUHAN (Marshall). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Massachusetts, MIT Press, 1994, 388 p.
POWER (Marcus). Digitized Virtuosity: Video War Games and Post-9/11 Cyber-Deterrence, in Security Dialogue. 2007, vol. 38, nr. 2, p. 271-288.
FRASCA (Gonzalo). Play The Message: Play, Game and Videogame Rhetoric. Denmark, 2007, s.e., 213 p.
HESMONDHALGH (David). The Cultural Industries. London, Sage, 2007, 346 p.
Interesting reads
BOGOST (Ian). Videogames and Ideological Frames, in Popular Communication. 2006, vol. 4, nr. 3, p. 165-183.
CLEARWATER (David A.). Living in a Militarized Culture: War, Games and the Experience of U.S. Empire, in TOPIA: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies. 2010, nr. 23-24, p. 260-285.
"Who Serves Whom?": thoughts on the new console generation
As the progeny of this console generation has been revealed, I take some time to let the various selling points for the products sink in. As is to be expected, every new console, be it the PS4, Xbox One or Wii-U, has converged with other technologies and services to provide a bigger, better and faster entertainment system for their players.
Nintendo has started to dabble with second-screen technology; Microsoft’s created a console that should, if all works correctly, actively tailor itself to the needs and wishes of the user; and Sony has equally claimed to have a more customizable and powerful system good to go by the end of this year.
These, to me at least, are not the highlights of the coming generation. Far from it. Although they expand the scope of connectivity and services offered by said entertainment systems, they hardly bring about significant changes to the industry’s landscape. The biggest changes will be brought about by new actors entering the market, like Nvidia, and the Ouya. These are some of the few that sparked my interest, and here’s why…
Disclaimer
As an immediate disclaimer, I’ll underline that this post does not delve deeply into the new features of any of the Big Three. Instead, I want to check the attention they are receiving by shedding light on the consoles already here, and on the horizon, by pointing out their value and possibilities. These are, again, by no means exhaustive. I highlight but a few key attributes to serve the comparison I’ll be making.
The Big Three
The direction the Big Three are heading is, as mentioned above, hardly surprising. As more technologies are converging in this Digital Age, consoles take the forefront in becoming an actual entertainment system that combines video, audio and gaming. A big selling point for the PS2 was its ability to play DVD’s, as was the Blu-ray capability of the PS3, which equally expanded the scope of the services offered by the PlayStation consoles. The Nintendo Wii marketed itself successfully as a unisex/uni-age console, not necessarily seeking out new services but highly expanding its demographic. The Xbox, in this regard, I find in an awkward position taking a shaky middle-ground in the previous generation. It therefore figures that Microsoft, with the Xbox One, tried to woo the crowd with “exciting” media partnerships and cross-media capabilities. As the Xbox One took the stage, critics and gamers picked out and bit into the DRM protection, and on-line requirements of the console, raising the question which party’s interests were thus served. The gamer’s, or the industry’s? And if it serves the industry’s interests, which part of it? Developers, publishers, distributers, all have different concerns and are hardly a homogenous group. This makes the question all the more interesting, and makes it worthwhile to consider at length.
Whose interests are served?
One can argue that Microsoft mostly took the interests of the publishers at heart, since they were for some time keen on taking back a piece of the revenue generated by wholesalers reselling used copies. In short, and sadly not to the credit of that particular subject, you could say wholesalers are lifting products out of their original production chain and setting up a new transaction where they get full profit without remunerating the original creators. To say this system has no flaws would be a blatant lie, and only take into account the position of one actor, the gamer. However, we could also argue that Microsoft’s solution was equally flawed in not taking the gamer into account enough, and selling their customers short in favor of a quick solution to a highly convoluted problem. But in line with this argument against Microsoft’s, by now revoked, policy; are the expanded services offered by other systems truly in favor of the customer? I sincerely doubt it.
Digital Distribution and ownership
Distribution of games is increasingly dominated by digital platforms, accordingly, more of our library of games is immaterial and located not in our home but in the distributor’s database. In short we are trading in physical copies for convenience, but in doing so we are also trading in ownership of the products we buy. Our ownership is linked to the viability of the platform, and as such the economic viability of the companies behind it. Even when you buy a console, as happened with the PS3, it is more akin to a lease contract than actual ownership. Once bought it is not wholly your property and if Sony deems PS2 compatibility unnecessary after release, it gets revoked. This loss of ownership breeds insecurity, and I feel it is this insecurity that should be tackled by the industry, instead of the convergence of different media into one system. Therefore, to me, the Ouya, Nvidia’s Project Shield, and Steam Big Picture/Steam Box (The Steam Box however is still not scheduled for release) are the apex of this generation of consoles.
The big picture
Even though Steam Big Picture is PC based, it opens up many opportunities for Valve to challenge the console market, and for players to escape the limitations enforced by the Big Three. What Steam effectively offers is a cross-platform library of games, where once bought, your game is ready to be played on any platform supporting it, currently either Mac OSX, Windows, or in some cases Linux. It cannot be stressed enough how important this is to grant security to gamers. In giving up ownership of your physical copies, you are effectively multiplying it. You do not own one copy, you own two, even three, and can access these on any device you own. Thanks to Steam Big Picture, you can also access your library in the same way as you would owning a console, by playing on your TV. The downside is the necessity to own an either big or small PC located near your TV, which is not easily accessible to a large demographic. The Steam Box would and could leverage this, but is still not to be released soon, and other options such as Shuttle PC’s or the Xi3 Piston are very expensive.

Nvidia’s Project Shield takes it one step slower in offering a handheld device that can either serve as a stand-alone device or be used to stream games from your Steam library anywhere inside your home. This opens up your PC collection to a handheld gaming system, provided you use Steam and have a GeForce graphics card equipped. Sadly, innovations seem to come with new limitations. Whether Project Shield will be compatible with other digital distribution platforms or systems, I can’t tell, and the current direction seems to be transporting PC games onto a wide variety of different media, but the reverse movement, compatibility from console to PC seems to be absent. As such, this is an interesting development for gamers with extensive PC collections, or even Steam libraries, but not so much for gamers with collections of console games. An exchange between games on different consoles from the Big Three also seems highly unlikely, unless the interests of publishers would shift immensely.
Agency
What is certain is the opportunity provided by the Ouya console. What this console sets forth to do is lower the curb for new developers to enter the industry, and reinstate the ownership the player has over the console he or she buys. In doing so, the Ouya empowers the gaming community, giving more possibilities for budding developers and technological savants to tune the hardware of the system. The Ouya, as such, is completely open source. The downsides are the lower technological specifications it carries, and the relatively small library of games it provides. The Ouya lacks in hard hitting AAA titles to sell the product, and mostly clings to an ideal to make it a viable alternative to the Big Three. Sure, the social network connectivity and media convergence is there too, but that (as I have tried to argue throughout this post) is of little importance. What matters to me, in the end, is whether or not this product makes a difference.
andulkaphoto
romaincrisis
discoholicmusic
2087
jbbartram-illu
gummygunk