I fired up the ole TV today for the first time in a few weeks (I'm not kidding) to veg and watch a good movie. There wasn't much on so I decided to check On Demand and was pleasantly surprised to see that they have all 6 Star Wars movies for free. I fired up the first movie (technically the 4th) and was really looking forward to some mindless entertainment. As I was watching, I began to draw some parallels between the movie and some of the games that we have been discussing in class. This promises to be a random blog, with thoughts interposed throughout and no general structure, so enjoy.
The first thing that really hit me was that all the scenes that occur in the hallways of the Death Star are reminiscent of many of the linear FPS games that I have played. I began to wonder whether or not the Star Wars movies' depiction of the hallway was the inspiration for the standard world that many FPS's exist within. In thinking about this, I was drawn to the idea that if the Star Wars movie was the inspiration for this aspect of the game, then it is also part of that games peritext.
On to targeting: there were several scenes in the movie that seemed to focus on targeting and what seemed to be a rudimentary form of video game. Luke and Han are in the Millenium Falcon and are fighting off some bad guys and instead of seeing the actual ships being targeted and shot at, we are presented with an archaic 3D image of the ship being targeted and the targeting system. The whole battle scene was played out in this image rather than in "real time". I couldn't help but think about what it meant to the viewer to be watching the action through a video-game like interface rather than as an image of the occurence itself. It opens up the action to different types of interpretation as well as more interaction with various types of viewers. Any fans of video games might view this scene of the movie as something that they could identify with.
Finally, the end of the movie is comepletely dependent on the idea of targeting. In order to destroy the Death Star, they needed to drop a bomb into a 2 meter wide opening in order to destroy the reactor core of the space station. It required a direct, perfect drop that was partially dependent upon the correct targeting of the objective, but also was dependent of the user interaction with the ship. The ship's pilot needed to take data from the targeting system and release the bomb at the precise moment necessary. In doing so, the movie reproduces the idea that targeting and user interaction are a way for us to overcome, in this case, and perhaps in all cases, some evil force.
What is interesting about this is that when Luke successfully drops the bomb, he does so with no assitence from technology. He switches off his targeting system and R2 is rendered unusable by a blast from an enemy ship. Perhaps in this instance the movie is commenting on the dependence of gamers on targeting systems, but in a way that seeks to assert that such systems are inherent within us all. Perhaps targeting is more than the reaction of a technological program, it is an inherent need in us all to overcome.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
"Locating" the paratext
Today's class discussion really struck upon many interesting facets of what it means for us to be studying video games as a form of textual analysis. In particular, I felt as though the emphasis of the discussion was based around the paratextual world of the gamespace, an idea that is far from novel in this class. But what develops from the focus of the discussion is perhaps an idea that requires further insight and questioning. What is it that makes the gamespace so appealing?
I realize that it would seem that one facet of the appeal is the actual game itself. McKenzie Wark, for example, would say that part of what draws us to the gamespace itself is targeting, or as we saw in the machinima video interview with him, perhaps it is the idea that the gamespace is just that, a space in which we can move into.
Dave Dries, on the other hand, offers a contrasting view of what it is that makes the gamespace so appealing. From what we can see through his video, the gamespace is largely not about the game itself, but rather it is about the atmosphere (where the term "atmosphere" is loosely used to describe the paratextual aspects of the game world). For Dries, the emphasis on the paratext of the game focuses on the physical space that the gamespace exists within. By showing that the arcade exists within a mall, and that when looking out from the arcade you can see a movie theater, a music store (Records and Tapes: talk about the nostalgia!) and also a serene fountain, he extends our understanding of "gamespace" to also incorporate popular culture of the time.
I think that a work like Dries' forces us to look at what it is exactly that we can use to define "paratext". For Dries, paratext, when it is being attributed to video games, is not a simple box that a game comes in, or even the directions and cover art that are inherent in a game box either. The paratext is everything outside of the game itself that gives meaning to that game. It is the people you interact with (at the arcade at least), the setting that the arcade provides as well as the setting that the arcade is located within, it is the ways that we interact with the games (as shown by his panning across various control schemes), as well as the societal norms that are created as a result of the arcade (lining up quarters on the base of the screen to "mark your spot").
Taking the obvious importance of the paratextual world in Dries' depiction of the gamespace, I believe that we must rethink the power it holds in creating that gamespace itself. Perhaps the game is nothing more than an excuse to get together in theses settings. Certainly the popularity of pool halls and bars are evidence to that fact. Why do people pay $3.50 + tip for a beer when a 6-pack only costs a buck or two more? The answer lies in this simple fact: the beer is most likely only an excuse to go out and be immersed in an atmosphere that they feel comfortable in. I believe that video games provide much the same experience. Whether you are playing online or at an arcade, the results are the same: you are immersed in a paratextual world from which you are getting a feeling and sense of belonging, making memories and really, just having a good time.
I realize that it would seem that one facet of the appeal is the actual game itself. McKenzie Wark, for example, would say that part of what draws us to the gamespace itself is targeting, or as we saw in the machinima video interview with him, perhaps it is the idea that the gamespace is just that, a space in which we can move into.
Dave Dries, on the other hand, offers a contrasting view of what it is that makes the gamespace so appealing. From what we can see through his video, the gamespace is largely not about the game itself, but rather it is about the atmosphere (where the term "atmosphere" is loosely used to describe the paratextual aspects of the game world). For Dries, the emphasis on the paratext of the game focuses on the physical space that the gamespace exists within. By showing that the arcade exists within a mall, and that when looking out from the arcade you can see a movie theater, a music store (Records and Tapes: talk about the nostalgia!) and also a serene fountain, he extends our understanding of "gamespace" to also incorporate popular culture of the time.
I think that a work like Dries' forces us to look at what it is exactly that we can use to define "paratext". For Dries, paratext, when it is being attributed to video games, is not a simple box that a game comes in, or even the directions and cover art that are inherent in a game box either. The paratext is everything outside of the game itself that gives meaning to that game. It is the people you interact with (at the arcade at least), the setting that the arcade provides as well as the setting that the arcade is located within, it is the ways that we interact with the games (as shown by his panning across various control schemes), as well as the societal norms that are created as a result of the arcade (lining up quarters on the base of the screen to "mark your spot").
Taking the obvious importance of the paratextual world in Dries' depiction of the gamespace, I believe that we must rethink the power it holds in creating that gamespace itself. Perhaps the game is nothing more than an excuse to get together in theses settings. Certainly the popularity of pool halls and bars are evidence to that fact. Why do people pay $3.50 + tip for a beer when a 6-pack only costs a buck or two more? The answer lies in this simple fact: the beer is most likely only an excuse to go out and be immersed in an atmosphere that they feel comfortable in. I believe that video games provide much the same experience. Whether you are playing online or at an arcade, the results are the same: you are immersed in a paratextual world from which you are getting a feeling and sense of belonging, making memories and really, just having a good time.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The "Universe" of the game space
When were talking in class about the ways in which the gamespace can be viewed as a universe my understanding of the importance of understanding the peritextuality of works within gamespace and even within traditional textual spaces was re-invented. It's a strange sensation; one moment I believed that I had a decent understanding of the importance of the peritextual space and the ways in which it is useful to further ones understanding of the text itself, and the next I was blown away, thinking about all the possibilities that thinking about the gamespace as a universe offers.
Particularly intriguing to me was the idea that we can think about the instances of player (or reader) interaction with the text as being "vectors", each one of which can be used to define that specific players understanding of the text. That is to say that the vectors of interaction will inherently define the "meaning" of the game or for that player. Perhaps even more significant to the model is the idea that once you view it in the light of a universe of interaction, you can then begin to categorize the whole process in a systematic way. The elements of the system, whether they be the players interaction with the storyline, the graphics or even the music can be categorized and developed into these different vectors of meaning.
Once we are able to define what meaning is to one player, then we can also inherently claim to understand (to a point) what meaning is not. This idea opens up a whole new area for sub-thought, namely the idea that the undiscovered meanings of the universe of the game space can and do exist. In this way perhaps we can begin to define the "undefinable" in much of a Sausserian way. Saussere believed that when we develop methods of signs, we were basically defining things by what they were not. We can look at a tree and know that it is not a dog because the many signifiers (words) that society uses to evoke the image of a dog are attributable only to that meaning.
In the same way, perhaps we are able to investigate the gamespace by what it is not, using negative signification to develop theoretical ideas about what hasn't been discovered in the gamespace as a result of what has.
Particularly intriguing to me was the idea that we can think about the instances of player (or reader) interaction with the text as being "vectors", each one of which can be used to define that specific players understanding of the text. That is to say that the vectors of interaction will inherently define the "meaning" of the game or for that player. Perhaps even more significant to the model is the idea that once you view it in the light of a universe of interaction, you can then begin to categorize the whole process in a systematic way. The elements of the system, whether they be the players interaction with the storyline, the graphics or even the music can be categorized and developed into these different vectors of meaning.
Once we are able to define what meaning is to one player, then we can also inherently claim to understand (to a point) what meaning is not. This idea opens up a whole new area for sub-thought, namely the idea that the undiscovered meanings of the universe of the game space can and do exist. In this way perhaps we can begin to define the "undefinable" in much of a Sausserian way. Saussere believed that when we develop methods of signs, we were basically defining things by what they were not. We can look at a tree and know that it is not a dog because the many signifiers (words) that society uses to evoke the image of a dog are attributable only to that meaning.
In the same way, perhaps we are able to investigate the gamespace by what it is not, using negative signification to develop theoretical ideas about what hasn't been discovered in the gamespace as a result of what has.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)