Recently, I touched upon the subject of games as art. This is by means unexplored territory; in fact it is so well traversed that the great movie critic Roger Ebert has commented on the subject. Unfortunately, he voices a negative opinion. He bases his view on arguments I can’t completely accept, while I do agree that not everything that is of value is art.
All the shades of gray, but no… Monday, Feb 1 2010
games homosexuality, mass effect 14:08
Like everybody and their mother, I’ve been playing Mass Effect 2. The game includes a lot of dialogue and after a chat with a supporting character I was quite sure Shepard was flirting with him. This is in no way unexpected, as it seems that Shepard is quite omnisexual and will flirt with anything that seems to have approximately two legs.
What got me interested was that this was a male character, being flirted with by my male Shepard. I got online and checked: No, no homosexual relationships in Mass Effect 2. Unless you’re a woman, in which case you got at least two candidates. It seems that you can have sex with four kinds of different aliens (the galaxy seems very… compatible), girl-on-girl action is okay, but when it is about two male characters hitting the pillows, it’s a no go. Way to chicken out, Bioware.
The Practice of Theory: Seminar of Culture Studies Saturday, Dec 12 2009
ludology caillois, cultural studies, ergodic texts, gambling studies, game research, juul 09:41
I attended the seminar of Society for Cultural Studies in Finland. It is a two-day seminar, so I’m missing part of it as I’m writing this, but the most interesting part has already ended: game(s) research workshop. There was unfortunately only few presentations on games, but at least some of these were useful for me. I also got to meet some of the games researchers in Finland. In addition, I found a short and cheap (but competent-looking) book on ergodic texts. I’ve been meaning to look for something about that.
But! When I started writing this (seldom updated) blog, I decided that it was not about me, but on things. With that in mind:
One of the most interesting talks on games was about the gap between games research and what is often called gambling studies. The main difference between these two phenomena seem to be money, and the moralistic attitude often associated with it. Games with money at stake are often seen as something other (often lesser) than games, with Caillois even considering gambling a corruption of games. Juul tells us that a possibility of negotiable consequences is needed for something to be a game, and this certainly lacks in games with money at stake. The consequences are decided beforehand, are not negotiable and are often set by the house.
But as Kinnunen noted, it could be useful to note the similarities between gambling and gaming and bridge the oft-artificial line between them in order to understand both (or the one) phenomena better. The addition of money to games changes the nature of the gaming, but does not necessarily make the process something other than gaming. One example of how this view could be achieved in research is the method popular among game researchers: Goffman’s frame analysis.
Comments Off
Pacman causes crime! Monday, Nov 23 2009
games games, GTA, pacman, violence 16:13
Actually, what this shows that there is no connection between violent crime and GTA. The trend of blaming video games for violent crime is rubbish.
I’ve been trying to find something on this for a while, but this picture was actually encountered on a random stumble to http://www.kobrascorner.com/images/vgame-graph.png.
Comments Off
Defining games Monday, Oct 26 2009
ludology and philosophy definition, foks, games 15:27
I held a presentation on games in the National Seminar for Philosophy Students (Filosofian opiskelijoiden kansallinen seminaari, FOKS in Finnish) last saturday. It was mostly just basic stuff on (the study of) games, with some quotes from Wittgenstein, Suits, Juul and Salen & Zimmerman.
As an ending I presented a loose argument that a minimum definition of games has to include only three points: separation, conflict and rules.
Separation means that a game is in some sense separate from the surrounding reality usually both spatially and temporally. (The line of separation is commonly called ‘the magic circle’.) This can also be extended to cover the concept of artificiality commonly associated with games, and Juul’s demand that games must have “negotiable consequences”.
There must also be conflict. Since there cannot be conflict without opposition, there must at least two participants. These don’t need to be two human players, as a set of rules or a computer can also be a source of opposition. Conflict also presumes that there must be a goal worth pursuing, or else there will be no conflict. Conflict also requires effort from the players.
Games must have rules, or they are simply general play. These rules don’t need to be explicit, but they tend to be or tend to become such. Rules also limit the choices available for the players and participate in creating the magic circle. In doing so they set the temporal and spatial limits of the game, as well telling the players how to pursue the goal, and what counts as winning.
Most of the elements commonly used in defining games (at least the most important ones) can be derived from these three, so they constitute what I’d call a minimal definition of games.
Comments Off
(a)Games Friday, Oct 16 2009
games games, lose/lose, passage, progressquest 19:42
When reading about games I’ve come across some very peculiar things that may not entirely be called games, but which resemble them very closely. They also differ from games in interesting ways. What makes them non-games (or a-games) differs, but each example is interesting:
Passage seems to be a game of passing through a (randomly generated) maze, but really it is more a story of passing through life. You begin the journey as a young man and encounter a woman; if you touch her, you will begin walking together. If you walk with her, you will not be able to go everywhere – walking with her limits your choices. But at least you’re not walking alone. Passage is more of a work of art than a game (not that they are exclusive categories), worth the few minutes it takes to try it.
Lose/Lose is a game I haven’t had the courage to try. It is a Space Invaders-clone, with an interesting twist: there a consequences to your actions. The aliens won’t attack, but you are armed. Every time you do use your weapon, Lose/Lose deletes a file from your computer. (I say again, Lose/Lose deletes files from your computer. Don’t try it if you’re not absolutely sure you want that to happen.) You have the power to destroy the aliens, but ultimately you are the only one hurt by that violence. One might sense that there is a message intended.
Progress Quest boasts that it is “well worth the time you’ll spend playing it.” I agree. It is an interesting take to computer rpg’s. You create a character (from various, hilarious options) and then embark on quests that mostly consist of killing everything you encounter and selling their stuff as loot. Sounds familiar? What separates Progress Quest from other computer rpg’s is that after you’ve created your character, you are no longer needed. It plays itself, killing and looting away with no player input required (it is what they call a ‘zero-player game’). Grinding has never been this easy!
Comments Off
The Player of Games Tuesday, Sep 8 2009
ludology games, iain banks, player of games, sci-fi 08:00
I recently read Iain M. Banks’ The Player of Games, and besides being a good book it’s got special kicks for anyone into game research. (more…)
Comments Off
