Feminism + Games

Regarding the Anita Sarkeesian video we watched in class:

I like Anita a lot and don't have much to say about her videos other than I agree with her. Video gaming, as we know and love it, is just barely breaking out of its infancy and growing up in a few different directions. There are big budget titles, creative indies, simple and addictive apps, "interactive experiences", and everything in between. This recent outbreak of feminist analysis has already enriched some of these branches of gaming, like in Thomas Was Alone. The mere concept that a blue square can be female without slapping a bow or anything on it is mindbogglingly simple yet shreds up any preconceived notion we had on the representation of gender and gender roles we had in gaming.

I'd say 90% of the stories I encounter in gaming are cliched and dull. If developers and writers see Anita's videos, I'm fully confident that we will see fresh ideas, stories, and characters in future games. This limitation (among others) that went unheeded until now, I believe, was preventing a lot of mainstream critics from appreciating games as an art form on the entertainment level. Any form of storytelling needs to be able to tell every kind of story there is, and the abundance of "save your girlfriend and kill everyone" types of stories were kind of clouding out everything else that was available. Hopefully we will see those types of games shrink in their majority and the medium will become as varied and stimulating as movies or comics, if not even more so due to the bonus factor of interactivity.

On a tangent, I was really intrigued by the comments the class made about race in video games. Is Link from Legend of Zelda technically a Hylian or can we consider him a Caucasian? There are other examples of representation of races in other fantasy games, but ultimately I think analyzing game races in relation to reality races is somewhat pointless. A digital character has no actual creed or genetic history, the purpose of race in video games should only be to further increase the connection the player has to the player character. Character customization is an amazing tool to increase immersion. When a character looks like me or looks like how I want to look or even feel, my connection to the character is more solid. That's me running around Saints Row 2, lobbing grenades onto a freeway. When players can say that, I think they are more invested into the world on their screen. Since humanity is so varied and colorful, it is only appropriate that player characters follow suit. We don't need a chiseled Anglo Saxon man with short brown hair to star in every game where we get no input as to the what the player character looks like.

Instead of replicating race in games with mere cosmetic changes, I'd like to see more aspects of the cultures associated with the race represented in a game. Like there is an endless amount of creativity that can be channeled from every kind of human experience. Even with just separate mythologies as a basis, we can get amazing games like God of War and Okami out on the market. So instead of worrying about what color Link is, we should worry about getting as much great material mined from reality and see it represented in game in a new and unique way.

My Final Project

 

What initially began as a an idea for a review for Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines morphed into a very brief series retrospective on F.E.A.R. Why FEAR? Partly because I got the three main games on sale a few weeks ago, the only one I hadn't played through being FEAR 2. I had fond memories of the original and of the third one, so I figured replaying and filming myself playing would be easy and provide lots of material to write about.

It's funny how re-playing a game, especially when you are writing a paper on it, becomes a chore. Getting just the right footage from a game is difficult. I make lots of bad decisions and explore empty corners. While this is raw play, it isn't terribly exciting to watch. It's also a little embarrassing. Also, not knowing when cool scripted sequences are about to take place is a hassle. I can't figure out how to get FRAPS running constantly, as opposed to 30 second brief sequences. Surely there is a way but I'm on a schedule, damnit, I don't have time to tinker with programs and use google. (EDIT: Turns out I'd need to buy the full version of FRAPS)

The first FEAR is still amazing, but the repetition really hurts the experience. The third FEAR, which I remember loving, I realize I only loved because of the co op experience. A couple summers ago, my room mate and I knocked out the main campaign. He played as Point Man, the time slower-downer man, while I played as Fettel, the poltergeist who can possess enemies. It was a blast. Alone, however, its a different experience. I realize how much weaker FEAR 3 is compared to the other two games. The cover mechanic is atrocious. Cover mechanics need to be banned from first person shooters. Why can't I just peek the corners with my E and Q keys like in FEAR 1? Why was this removed? Why are the scares so watered down? I appreciate the variety of levels and overall weirdness being cranked to 11 in FEAR 3 but, man, I sure want to play something else.

FEAR 2 is somewhat disappointing. There's definitely cool aspects, but it never reaches the highs of the original. My retrospective downplays the negative aspects of my reheated experience with these games. There's plenty to love and nothing else quite like it, but gahhh I just need to wash the taste of FEAR out of my mouth.


So when I need a breather from FEAR I'm playing the demo for Payday 2. I'm kicking myself for not buying the full game when it was on sale during Black Friday. It's hard to cooperate with your squad of bank robbers so every mission turns into a monotonous shootout (again I think I just need a sabbatical from first person shooters), but I can see so much potential. I yearn for the day the team and I can pull off a heist without a hitch.

ANYWAY, back to FEAR. I think my point is: like gamification can happen to work, workification can happen to games. I have overdosed on FEAR. It will take at least a week for me to foam at the mouth with joy while playing.

EDIT: Here is the video:

http://youtu.be/yU_uoEiJ_HQ

Internet game session

My partner and I played Dys4ia, This Is the Only Level,  a stripped down version of Oregon Trail, Don't Shit Your Pants, and Lesbian Spider-Queens of Mars.

Dys4ia: I like collections of micro-games. A variety of somewhat simple tasks in a short time frame is surprisingly engaging and interesting to watch. Repetition can make the viewing of a game dull, but Dys4ia is always telling a story. The viewer is pulling more of the story than the player, who is also partly concentrating on finishing challenges, but I found that associating some tasks to bits of the story imprinted them on my memory.

This Is the Only Level: Really fun, but confusing to watch. This is pure game play, there is no story or really detailed aesthetic. You're watching someone complete a puzzle, which can be an interesting experience, but to truly get it, you need to play. However, the viewer can notice some things that the player won't. The game gives the illusion that it is entirely repetitive, which the viewer can often see through faster than the player can. The viewer sees when the green door is open or closed or not, which spot you landed on killed out, how you died as soon as you spawned, etc. The player can get too disoriented on occasion to notice little change ups to give away how to complete the current challenge.

Weak Oregon Trail: This was an MS Paint remake of the classic Oregon Trail. It's missing some of the features of the normal version. The the rabbits in the hunting for food mini-game ran in a straight line across the screen in the same spot. No constant updates as to who got malaria or bitten by a snake (it takes forever for "Nothing fun happened today." to appear. No kidding.). You must float across all rivers written with the barest amount of code you can get away with. The choice, freedom, and excitement of crossing the American frontier with death never too far behind your wagon party is gone in this version. It gets tedious fast.

Don't Shit Your Pants: I love this game. Short, simple, text based adventures are fun and have lots of potential to engage you. This one is hilarious and has replay value. The automatic thoughts that go through your head are hard to recount when you need to transcribe them through a game. You think it would be easy to not shit your pants in a game because you do pretty well on a daily basis in real life but you'd be surprised.

Lesbian Spider-Queens of Mars: A classic arcade-type game. It reminds me of Joust. Imagine Pac Man with a tractor beam. You roam around a maze shooting a web-laser to weaken your slaves (or something) enough so that you may pull them into your web. It's fun to play and to look at. Enemies and the maze change up to keep things from getting stale, but it feels a little weird to control and it never feels terribly exciting.

My Prototype: Zombie Run

OBJECTIVE: Stay human, find the gasoline and the car to win.

RULES:
1. Cards are shuffled and placed face down in a 6 x 4 grid.
2.  Survivor cards are used to distract zombies. Supply cards only save humans from traps. Gun cards protect from zombie players. When a card is activated, it must be placed face-up on the field.
3. You must pick the card you land on until 4 cards are collected in your inventory. Then, they may be swapped when landed if the player chooses.
4. Inventory is kept private from players unless both are located next to each other horizontally or vertically on the game board. Then, they must trade. Players with the zombie card are zombies, and must trade their zombie card. Zombies cannot win the game unless all players are turned or dead.
5. Zombie cards must be collected or swapped for. Trap cards must be overturned.
6. A traded gun will kill zombie and human alike.
7. Players start with 1 survivor and 1 supply card in their inventory.
8. Only 1 space horizontal or vertical can be made per turn.
9. Rock paper scissors to find who goes first.
10. You can not spend more than 2 seconds to decide which way to go.
11. Manhole cards can teleport you to any spot on the field and are exposed and available to other players when landed on.
12. All trades are private and silent.
13. A player with both gas and car in inventory wins, or players with either item trade and win together.

First playtest:
Went by fast because the zombie announced herself as a zombie when she collected the zombie cards. We knew to stay away from her since we knew we would be turned if next to each other. Added privacy rule and expanded the field from 4 x 4 cards to 6 x 4 cards. More supplies, zombies, and survivors now.

3 players played

Second playtest:
Movement is monotonous. The time it takes for players to move and then take a card discreetly is too long. Enacting 2 second movement rule. If 2 seconds pass before player moves pass, the player forfeits turn.

2 players played. More dull than 3 players.

Third playtest:
Two second rule makes things a tad too frantic, is not strictly followed but does make things more interesting.Now tinkering with balance between cards. 1 less survivor, then 1 less zombie, 1 more trap, etc.

2 players played. More exciting. Still recommend 3 to 4 players.

Werewolf, Apples to Apples

During our first class play session, I was introduced to Werewolf. I also played Jenga and Apples to Apples, but those I've played many times before and are arguably much simpler and less interesting to talk about.

Werewolf, on the other hand, is very interesting. Of the core game types we went over in the reading, I'd say it was about prediction. The other day in class, someone said it was about survival, which I don't entirely agree with but I think is also valid. (On a side note, I'd argue many games cannot be neatly defined by only one of these descriptors, but I'll talk about that later.) We had about 14 players, everyone was distributed a card. Some players were werewolves, most were villagers, and I had the luck of being the seer. The way the game was described wasn't entirely clear to me, and I think others had the same problem. "Talk to each other like you're normal villagers and not werewolves and try and figure out who the werewolves are." What? I've never been a villager or a seer, how do I get people to trust me?

 Werewolf relies on the players' paranoia to get things started. Luckily, someone began accusing his friend. All I needed to get involved was to judge the behavior of whoever spoke. We got a discussion rolling, voted on who to kill (who ended up being a villager), and it was time for the werewolves to hunt again. I am still not entirely sure what the duty of the seer was. I think the moderator asked me to guess who the werewolves killed before the villagers woke up, I guessed wrong, and went back to sleep.

The dynamic of the game is complex. You have to make a pitch for what is almost a blind guess and get people to vote for your choice, but at the same time the more you talk the more suspicious you become, and the more right you are the more the werewolves want to kill you. Unbeknownst to me, I called one of the werewolves "shifty-eyed" and "definitely a werewolf," but the village majority voted for someone else to die and I was killed the following night. I enjoyed the game in spite of my short exposure, and would love to play again. I'd like to try it out with people who I know well next time, as I imagine the experience is different than when playing with strangers.

Apples to Apples is also about making a pitch, but without the need for much talking. I'd designate it as a trading game. You trade words and descriptions for green cards. Whoever gets the most green cards wins. It's funny and it's a good way to get to know people. People are much more relaxed and natural when playing Apples to Apples than when playing Werewolf.

Hello and Welcome

I'm excited to be taking this class. Games are something I've always been intrigued by but never dug into with much thought. They've been a big part of my life and I have never had the opportunity to discuss and analyze them in depth.


I'm a big video game aficionado since I can remember., I started out on my siblings' NES and was instantly smitten. I was particularly absorbed by the way games looked. I distinctly recall being fascinated by the worlds in Super Mario Bros. 3, the sprites in Metroid, and even whatever art was pasted on the cartridges. I'd rarely get a chance to play (and when I did I was never any good), but years later I got my very own Playstation.

Now that I could play without any big siblings around, I became less interested in how everything looked and more into all the things I could do. Exploring worlds in Spyro the Dragon, driving through glass windows in Twisted Metal, catching monkeys in Ape Escape were fond experiences that etched themselves into my memory.

As I got older, I was always itching for more. By the time I had played Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes and Resident Evil 4, I had become completely obsessed. I've been a devout follower of Joystiq, Kotaku, and IGN since 2005, always on the lookout for news of sequels and upcoming new titles. As a side effect, I've learned a lot about video gaming history, which is fascinating. I'm eager to expand this knowledge past video games.