Midterm Paper Abstract
Immersion:
Immersion is the be all, end all of game design. You can create a video game with the best graphics, concept, controls, and sound, but without the illusive quality of immersion any player will quickly dismiss the game. But what exactly is immersion if it is not any of the above qualities specifically? Could it be a mixture of all of them? Is it even necessary for a game to have it? Some would argue that immersive games exist which would rank poorly in almost all of those categories, yet some games do it with all of them. Whatever the combination of these attributes, all will agree that immersion is possibly the most important thing a game can exhibit. It is what causes the player to become lost in the world that the game has created, eliminating the 4th wall completely. The question then becomes, how do I control this?
In my this paper I intend to develop some measure of theory concerning the development of levels of immersion in games over the decades, and in turn come up with some ideas as to what can be done to guarantee that a game will involve a user in the world set before them. I will comprehensively list and analyze games which are considered to exhibit this quality, hopefully discerning an overarching principle by which these games were created. The goal of this paper is to provide a tool or a reference for those interested in creating a game of their own which will be immersive.
NPR Farts Discuss Gaming...
Ok, so maybe that's a little harsh. The topics discussed on this 20th anniversary of gaming special are actually quite pertinent to what we've been learning and held my interest pretty well. The whole thing started off with a look at what video games actually are as stated by the authors of
Smart Bomb. These two really seemed to know their stuff and I particularly liked Aaron Ruby's idea of control vs. traditional narrative as being what sets games apart from other media. His wording was that players are dropped into a dynamic system, and were engaged in problem solving efforts, neither of which are seen in other forms of entertainment.
Their defense of Grand Theft Auto was particularly eloquent in saying that the draw for players to this game was not that it was overtly violent, but rather that the allowed freedom of control and ability to witness complex cause and effect relationships was the real draw. I too felt this same reasoning when I played the game. I was not necessarily fascinated by the amount of gore, or the fact that I could solicit a prostitute, and then steal my money back. (although I and friends have felt the urge to do these things in game, at least in the quenching of curiosity.) Instead, what kept me coming back again and again was the feeling that I was a legitimate entity in a dynamic world with which I could interact with in profound ways. No other game had offered this level of immersion for me previous to it.
Also brought up by Chaplin and Ruby is the tie between gaming and technology. I had known that video gaming is a major force in driving innovation in technology, but their revelation in seeing the move from military and scientific fields to gaming as primary motivators was an interesting one. We're at a point where the military, scientific, and medical fields are looking at the latest developments in gaming for innovation. This made me think of the game America's Army as an example. This game, originally developed for the US Army for training purposes was considered worthy of a release for consumers to take advantage of. This game was completely made by everyday game developers, but was the Army's best bet for simulation. Not only that, it became a recruitment tool for the army as the game is completely free. These sort of relationships between traditional sectors and game developers, I feel are likely to become much more common in coming years.
A final thought that actually branches off of what Eric Zimmerman was saying in The Missing Piece is the idea that there is currently a large focus on technology in the world of video gaming. One caller-in called it a focus on adrenaline based games, but really what it comes down to is a focus on visual or other effects that create a certain excitement. While this is all well and good as far as technical innovation goes, there is something lacking which Heather Chaplin brought up about the feeling she gets from reading a great novel by Tolstoy: That is the feeling of immersion and satisfaction that comes from experiencing something that is not only stimulates the senses, but also the emotions and intellect of the person experiencing it. She referred to it as feeling enriched. While her view may be a little romantic, it is one that I share. Video games still have a long way to go to mature as a medium. There are still too many technical distractions to devote enough time to subtle nuances such as character development and emotional impact on the user.(although many games are attempting these things with varying success) Ruby says, as the technology/graphics plateau, the medium will be allowed to mature and become as enriching as great novels. I certainly don't want to have to wait much longer to get an awesome looking first person game with a complex story driven plot and emotionally involving characters.
Week 2- Contra: the arcade game
Relating the game Contra (1987), by Konami to the Spheres of Meaning originated by Panofsky.
Primary:
I am presented with a view of a human character from a side view. He is standing on a flat surface that seems to be hovering in mid air, but is probably a sort of ground plane. The man is very strong looking, wears camouflage, has spare bullets strapped to him, and holds a large gun. The scenery is lush and green with various other details in the foreground that look more technological and man-made. It generally looks futuristic. I can control this character by using buttons corresponding to up, down, left, and right. Up and down are jump and lay down respectively. I also have controls to shoot my weapon. I can simultaneously do all of these actions while shooting and can jump in any direction. At times I have multiple platforms on which to walk, allowing me to choose where to progress. As I scroll to the right in walking, I come across opponents who fire at me with their own weapons. Most are seemingly robotic or completely alien. Some are human but wear suits that make them look futuristic. Multiple enemies at a time confront me. One gun shot from me can usually destroy an opponent and likewise one shot from them can usually cause me to loose a token unit, referred to as a life. I find several opportunities to increase the abilities of my weapon by coming across certain items in the game. These are presented at fairly regular intervals and allow me to more easily defeat enemies. After completing a section of the game I am presented with a new view. This time I am indoors in an industrial looking compound of sorts. The view is behind my character and the enemies and subjects of interest are places in front of me. I move forward, or towards the back of the screen until the game shows arrow icons which indicate to me that I can go in certain directions. If I choose one, the scene cuts and I am given a new view, supposedly corresponding to my direction. As I continue to shoot enemies I am blocked by what looks like electricity running across the hall. I find that by shooting certain targets at the end of the hall I can turn these off, and continue. The rest of the game goes on in this fashion, at certain points presenting me with a more powerful character that holds importance over the rest. Defeating these characters allows me to move on to a new stage until the game is completed.
Secondary:
The storyline in Contra has to do with the rising of an Alien race from an area in South America. As one of two characters you must go to this local and defend the human race from the impending takeover. This takes place either in 2633 or 1988 depending on the release of the game you're playing. I found the game to be a typical side-scroller by today's standards with some original gameplay elements in the use of third person pseudo-3D views when in the base missions that alternate with that of the more 2D sidescrolling portions. For a game of its time (1987) the graphics seem fairly complex and the game felt fully fleshed out for what it was. The number of weapon power-ups is satisfying and the intense, adrenaline-necessary play style was captivating. I found I needed to carefully balance my movements to avoid weapon fire from several enemy units at once. The difficulty was not too bad, and after a couple of restarts I could progress through a few levels without too many hangups. The visual style was appropriately over the top for the gung ho nature of the story, which is riddled with masculine archetypes, but more on that later. Overall, I found it to be far enough ahead of its time to be comparable to the Duke Nukem series, though DN did not have any changes in perspective so kudos to Konami.
Intrinsic:
As I said this game is most definitely appealing to the male hoping to enact some fictional shoot-em-up violence on some enemies. Basically an Alien ass kicking game with little to nothing left to the imagination. The characters, Mad Dog and Scorpion, or Bill and Lance (depending on the version) are the epitome warrior archetypes, with muscle shirts, bulging muscles, and huge, phallic compensating weapons. Their sole desire in the game is to destroy. No mention is made of the loved ones they seek to protect from the aliens, nor of their feelings toward the situation. Granted, in an arcade settings these sorts of things are hard to get across, but the intention of Konami is clear. As a whole I can see this as it lies in the lineage of violent games that we are all familiar with. I'm wondering if the original shooting sidescrollers are the first to feature human depictions of violence. If so, they are crucial to the development of games that allow the user to take part in these actions and set the precident for future renditions of violence that are often debated today. It might be interesting to keep these in focus when talking about the current issues debated by our elected officials relating to violence in games. Perhaps we could remind them that they or their children were pumping quarters into games like this in the 80's without so much as a societal twitch.
Week 1
Looking over the assigned articles I couldn't help but reminisce about my history of video gaming. I'd forgotten much of my experiences with gaming, and it actually surprised me how much of the wiki article was part of those experiences. That said, there was a bit that was new to me, namely the early LED and LCD handhelds and the video game crash of '83 which I was unaware of.
I often complain to people about the endless squabbles debating the specific hardware-related merits of each new system. It interested me to see how this debate, or these specific selling points (such as 16-bit processing in the case of the intellivision) really have driving the popularity of the systems throughout their history. I often argue that in the case of any new system, you shouldn't jump on the bandwagon of whatever system has the best specs but rather it's better to wait and see what sort of games are being made for it. After all, the best games of all time aren't necessarily remembered for their innovative graphics. Instead, it's usually the fun factor or uniqueness of games that usually decides their place in history.
No doubt other people will be blogging their game experiences here so I'll do the same...My first memories of video games are of the original NES at a friends house somewhere around '92. I seem to only remember playing the popular duck hunt game with the famous light gun. I was definitely impressed by the vividness of the experience and I remember wondering how the light gun could possibly work with a TV, which has no provisions for such a peripheral.
The next year my family got an IBM PC. My savvy uncle had set it up for us and he made sure there were a decent selection of games on it when Christmas day came around and we unveiled the new PC. At the time, I don't think I understood the implications of what a computer could do and I think that because of my age as new possibilities showed themselves I took them in stride rather than dwelling on them. These early games were such titles as Commander Keen 1-4, Wolfenstein 3D, and The Secret of Monkey Island.
I would definitely attribute my adeptness at game playing to these early experiences. At such an age children are pretty malleable and so I was able to adapt to this unique experience. Today, picking up a new game and playing it is similar to riding a friends bike. There may be some minute differences, but essentially they are very similar and various gametypes are ingrained in my psyche. However, this may also be a disadvantage from the perspective of researching and analyzing gaming. It would not be surprising, in fact, if I was less able to recognize the immediate implications of this media genre as someone who has lived through the origins might be able to. At the same time I do feel more keen to subtle variations and nuances of game culture, game styles, etc.
I could be considered a gamer. It has undoubtedly been a constant in my life. It's the reason I'm studying what I am and the reason I take interest in such technical hobbies.
Lately, largely because of time constraints, I've only been able to take interest in games which I find unique or fresh; ones that offer something new to the table and cause me to be inspired. A prime example of this is a game called 'Spore' which should be released within the next year. I won't go into specifics but it is original beyond the scope of most notable original games.
I'd also like to point you to a new flash game that caught my attention as being refreshing:
Cosmic CrushMy goal for this course is to gain some valuable insights as to what makes an original game what it is, and in turn use this to develop some ideas of my own. These might be particularly useful for the game production class I'm taking.
Luke to blog, Luke to blog. Do you read?
