So many topics, so little time to discuss them. It's been about a week since I last put something up so I figured now was as good of a time as any.
I have been back nose deep into Fallout: New Vegas and its DLC for the last couple of weeks, loving it. When the game was first released I burned through the story, doing several side quests but never really exploring like I did in Fallout 3. The Capitol Wasteland just felt so interesting to me compared to the Mojave, the ruined landmarks, the subtle differences of said landmarks from their real-life counterparts and even the outrageous misuse of the Brotherhood of Steel. But looking back on the whole thing it was the DLC packs that kept me playing for such a long period of time.
The original DLC, Anchorage, was a wash, it wasn't even Fallout. It had no real exploration and a run and gun follow-orders plot that felt alien to the Fallout style of play. But they improved, offering new areas to be explored and more loots to be discovered. Each new installment had a unique style and flair that was instantly recognizable. Returning from The Pitt or Point Lookout had you looking like a foreigner when you re-entered the capitol. Instead of feeling like 'The Vault Kid' the boxed game painted you as, you began to look and feel like a seasoned adventurer, the kind of guy or girl who had experience getting things done. As a role playing game it changed the dynamics of the experience without really changing a thing. You had weapons nobody else in town had, you were strange and unique and really stood out as the hero.
Bethesda while creating new content for their already enormous game made their original offering better. I'm not entirely sure it was intentional and if you're playing on the PC mods can easily offer the same experience but they did it. Fallout 3 as a package with its DLCs is remarkably better than the sum of its parts.
But that's the past, lets get back to the now.
I'm not going to lie, personally I think Old World Blues looks like the most promising Fallout DLC yet.
When I was in high school I had the pleasure of playing Fallout 2 and yet I'm ashamed to admit I've never found the time to play the original. My memories of Fallout 2 are hazy but I remember it being jam-packed with pop culture references and being downright zany at times. If we just ignore all the crappy in-between titles like that one on Xbox, FO:3 was like a modern re-imagining of Fallout in the same vein as a film re-imagining. The concept was the same, as were some of the factions and characters for nostalgia's sake, but it was a completely different monster. Fallout 2 never really took itself seriously. It was full of sex and drugs, the violence was laughably over-the-top and the game constantly poked fun at itself. Fallout 3 on the other hand took itself quite seriously, instead of making fun of celebrities it hired them as voice actors. Instead of painting a post-apocalyptic USA in a sort of ironic 'lets all keep repeating the same mistakes' sort of way Bethesda chose to go state-of-nature on us. I'm not going to try and argue which is the better approach, obviously both camps have their supporters.
Back to Old World Blues, remember at the time of writing this it hasn't been released I have no idea what it will really be like. OWB looks to be like an attempt to recapture some of that old school Fallout feel. Something that I think newcomers to the franchise will find different at first but lead them to ultimately experience what earned Fallout so many fans in the first place. I'm not going to speculate on content, more on it in the future once i get to play it.
Cheers,
Gibbo
Monday, July 11, 2011
Monday, July 4, 2011
Love is a Battlefield
I'm going to jump right in and say it, I love the Battlefield franchise. They've perfected a style of multiplayer in which it is primarily a team game, but a single exceptional player can still rise up and become the deciding factor in any given match. They've never really offered much in the way of single player experience and I for one haven't missed it, their games warrant their purchase price simply with their multiplayer design alone.
The current iteration, Bad Company 2, obviously isn't the full bodied Battlefield we've enjoyed in the past but I still find myself jumping in for a game or two whenever I have the time. There's cheaters, you can't lay prone, the voice chat doesn't really work, but it's still Battlefield. It's certainly not their greatest release, but the fun is still there under it all.
Their greatest release is coming at the end of the year, if you believe the hype. What hype it is too, just look at this stuff.
Now if that doesn't get you ready for some Battlefield, nothing will. But wait, that's the single player? That's not how I remember Battlefield. That looks more like something else...
But it's fine, DICE always deliver with the multiplayer goods, if anything it's better if they include a full fledged COD style single player, it just makes the purchase a more complete package.
Then the info starts to trickle in, those bloody location specific DLC exclusives. Buy it from Gamestop you get an extra gun, buy it from Amazon.com you get different outfits, buy it from Walmart and the Hummers are replaced with horses. Obviously these aren't the real exclusives, you'll have to go to a real game site to find out what those are. Now I shouldn't have to tell you, I'm Australian, I don't shop at those stores, I don't know where they are (Well, I know where Amazon.com is...). But they do the same thing here, they divide those location specific DLCs between the retailers in our country, like GAME, EB Games, Big W, Target etc. Now in all honesty how much can they really get out of Australian retailers in this initiative? We're not the USA, we're not even the UK, our video game market is minuscule compared to the world market.
But who cares right, small location specific game changes, how does it effect the game? It doesn't, it just divides up what's already on the disk on release and only makes certain parts available should you have the access code. I just don't like the trend, if it comes on the disk, it should be included in the (already sizable if you're Australian) purchase price. If you want to add stuff to the game later, make me download it, that way I don't mind paying the extra and I don't mind if I miss out.
But forget all that marketing crap, it's still Battlefield, you've just got to push through the tough, noisy EA exterior and get down to the juicy DICE centre. Once we get the game and we're playing it, it'll be just like we wanted it... right?
He changes to English, stick with it. Watch around the 2:00 mark. Good, you done? Moving on.
If you haven't had the time to download and try out Project Reaility you really are missing out. It's basically the greatest example of what a community who loves your game can do for a game as it ages. To stand there in your red shirt and say that the community who made that is too stupid to mod with your engine is outrageous. Shame on you red shirt man. I don't care about your tactical light shooting, you just insulted me.
Wow, this got kinda long. Am I going to buy and play Battlefield 3? Yes I am, I think in the same way that I can ignore all the parts of BC2 I don't like and still enjoy it I will be able to do the same with Battlefield 3. I just hope this is as far as it goes. Battlefield 3 will obviously sell well enough to warrant another sequel, I just hope by that point it's still Battlefield we're playing.
Thanks for reading
- Gibbo
The current iteration, Bad Company 2, obviously isn't the full bodied Battlefield we've enjoyed in the past but I still find myself jumping in for a game or two whenever I have the time. There's cheaters, you can't lay prone, the voice chat doesn't really work, but it's still Battlefield. It's certainly not their greatest release, but the fun is still there under it all.
Their greatest release is coming at the end of the year, if you believe the hype. What hype it is too, just look at this stuff.
Now if that doesn't get you ready for some Battlefield, nothing will. But wait, that's the single player? That's not how I remember Battlefield. That looks more like something else...
But it's fine, DICE always deliver with the multiplayer goods, if anything it's better if they include a full fledged COD style single player, it just makes the purchase a more complete package.
Then the info starts to trickle in, those bloody location specific DLC exclusives. Buy it from Gamestop you get an extra gun, buy it from Amazon.com you get different outfits, buy it from Walmart and the Hummers are replaced with horses. Obviously these aren't the real exclusives, you'll have to go to a real game site to find out what those are. Now I shouldn't have to tell you, I'm Australian, I don't shop at those stores, I don't know where they are (Well, I know where Amazon.com is...). But they do the same thing here, they divide those location specific DLCs between the retailers in our country, like GAME, EB Games, Big W, Target etc. Now in all honesty how much can they really get out of Australian retailers in this initiative? We're not the USA, we're not even the UK, our video game market is minuscule compared to the world market.
But who cares right, small location specific game changes, how does it effect the game? It doesn't, it just divides up what's already on the disk on release and only makes certain parts available should you have the access code. I just don't like the trend, if it comes on the disk, it should be included in the (already sizable if you're Australian) purchase price. If you want to add stuff to the game later, make me download it, that way I don't mind paying the extra and I don't mind if I miss out.
But forget all that marketing crap, it's still Battlefield, you've just got to push through the tough, noisy EA exterior and get down to the juicy DICE centre. Once we get the game and we're playing it, it'll be just like we wanted it... right?
He changes to English, stick with it. Watch around the 2:00 mark. Good, you done? Moving on.
If you haven't had the time to download and try out Project Reaility you really are missing out. It's basically the greatest example of what a community who loves your game can do for a game as it ages. To stand there in your red shirt and say that the community who made that is too stupid to mod with your engine is outrageous. Shame on you red shirt man. I don't care about your tactical light shooting, you just insulted me.
Wow, this got kinda long. Am I going to buy and play Battlefield 3? Yes I am, I think in the same way that I can ignore all the parts of BC2 I don't like and still enjoy it I will be able to do the same with Battlefield 3. I just hope this is as far as it goes. Battlefield 3 will obviously sell well enough to warrant another sequel, I just hope by that point it's still Battlefield we're playing.
Thanks for reading
- Gibbo
Time to dust this thing off
Hello there, whoever is unfortunate enough to be reading this. I haven't posted on this blog in quite some time so I very much doubt anyone will read this, but I feel the time is right to kick this thing off as I intended.
All posts before this one were written during university classes and can pretty much be ignored unless you're really keen on finding out how I write hung-over 3 hours from due time. Don't make that facial expression, you all did it.
Steam sales, Steam sales, Steam sales. It's funny, I'll march in the streets against over-developed mediocre titles like Homefront stealing talent and funding away from more interesting projects, but offer it to me for half the price and I'll buy it. It doesn't even seem to be the price that pushes me to the purchase, it's the fact I'm not paying what I paid for a good game that allows me to justify it. Somewhere in my mind it cheapens great games if I pay the same amount for something sub-par.
Speaking of sub-par, what was with Brink? I actually convinced friends of mine to purchase that. I guess I had it in my head how good the concept could be, didn't take the time to analyse the product they laid out. I tried to play it for about a week, just couldn't do it, it offered me nothing of interest.
So what does interest me these days? I played L.A. Noire and I really, really wanted to love it. I only played it when I was in a good mood, trying to maximize my opinion of it. But it was in vain. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly not a bad game, there's a lot going for it. I enjoyed the voice acting and the case work/notebook system was handled elegantly allowing you to rattle through the cases at a decent pace.
But it just felt so.... disjointed, I never really cared about doing the cases and it didn't take long until I didn't want to do them any more. Don't get me wrong, I'm not the type of guy who needs non-stop action in a game in order to enjoy it. In fact, my favourite parts of Half-Life 2 are the parts where you stop for a second and there's some tid-bit of story that offers a glimpse into the game world. L.A. Noir's story feels like a sticky slow swamp you need to wade through to get anywhere interesting. That's not to say it isn't well written, that isn't the problem, the whole game just feels as though it's missing a hook, some great game play spark that makes the ordeal worthwhile. Maybe I just really wanted it to be better, as an Australian I'm well aware of the problems the Australian games industry has had over the last few years. Team Bondi did the industry proud, L.A. Noire is a fine game, a game of quality, it's just not the game I wanted it to be.
A friend and I played the hell out of dungeon siege 1 and 2 back in the day. We loved that Diablo style of co-op. I picked up the new one was actually pretty eager to give it a go. Ignoring the awful monologue/story preview at the beginning I prepared myself for a bit of old fashioned gaming. I played it for three or four hours before I stopped and realized I was was forcing myself to play. Perhaps it was that I was playing on my own, but the style of game play, the isometric click-fest, just felt... well dated. Maybe I'm just out of practice, or maybe I need to actually get together with a friend and play it co-op (sorry about Brink guys...) but I was downright surprised at how bland and lifeless the game play felt. More on Dungeon Siege in the future though, I haven't given it a fair enough run yet to make a decision.
Anyway, this was fun, more in the future.
-Gibbo
All posts before this one were written during university classes and can pretty much be ignored unless you're really keen on finding out how I write hung-over 3 hours from due time. Don't make that facial expression, you all did it.
Steam sales, Steam sales, Steam sales. It's funny, I'll march in the streets against over-developed mediocre titles like Homefront stealing talent and funding away from more interesting projects, but offer it to me for half the price and I'll buy it. It doesn't even seem to be the price that pushes me to the purchase, it's the fact I'm not paying what I paid for a good game that allows me to justify it. Somewhere in my mind it cheapens great games if I pay the same amount for something sub-par.
Speaking of sub-par, what was with Brink? I actually convinced friends of mine to purchase that. I guess I had it in my head how good the concept could be, didn't take the time to analyse the product they laid out. I tried to play it for about a week, just couldn't do it, it offered me nothing of interest.
So what does interest me these days? I played L.A. Noire and I really, really wanted to love it. I only played it when I was in a good mood, trying to maximize my opinion of it. But it was in vain. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly not a bad game, there's a lot going for it. I enjoyed the voice acting and the case work/notebook system was handled elegantly allowing you to rattle through the cases at a decent pace.
But it just felt so.... disjointed, I never really cared about doing the cases and it didn't take long until I didn't want to do them any more. Don't get me wrong, I'm not the type of guy who needs non-stop action in a game in order to enjoy it. In fact, my favourite parts of Half-Life 2 are the parts where you stop for a second and there's some tid-bit of story that offers a glimpse into the game world. L.A. Noir's story feels like a sticky slow swamp you need to wade through to get anywhere interesting. That's not to say it isn't well written, that isn't the problem, the whole game just feels as though it's missing a hook, some great game play spark that makes the ordeal worthwhile. Maybe I just really wanted it to be better, as an Australian I'm well aware of the problems the Australian games industry has had over the last few years. Team Bondi did the industry proud, L.A. Noire is a fine game, a game of quality, it's just not the game I wanted it to be.
A friend and I played the hell out of dungeon siege 1 and 2 back in the day. We loved that Diablo style of co-op. I picked up the new one was actually pretty eager to give it a go. Ignoring the awful monologue/story preview at the beginning I prepared myself for a bit of old fashioned gaming. I played it for three or four hours before I stopped and realized I was was forcing myself to play. Perhaps it was that I was playing on my own, but the style of game play, the isometric click-fest, just felt... well dated. Maybe I'm just out of practice, or maybe I need to actually get together with a friend and play it co-op (sorry about Brink guys...) but I was downright surprised at how bland and lifeless the game play felt. More on Dungeon Siege in the future though, I haven't given it a fair enough run yet to make a decision.
Anyway, this was fun, more in the future.
-Gibbo
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Boyd's Community, Essential Selfishness for Online Gaming
Gaming networks offer very similar structures to social networking sites. Two obvious examples being Steam and Xbox Live! Through these networks, gamers are able to pick and choose their friends from the multitudes of others they play with through the course of their gaming experiences.
Boyd's notion of community, pertaining to online communities, asserts that “people define their community egocentrically,” suggesting that people create their online communities to serve their own needs, that they choose their friends in a self-serving fashion. This is in line with online gaming communities as well, gamers will pick and choose their friends within a game and if they persist playing that particular game they will more than likely being playing exclusively with friends they have previously played with.
A perfect example, at least for myself would be for the game Left 4 Dead (2008) in which the gamers are very reliant on the others on their team to progress through the levels, be it in co-op or versus mode. Gamers beginning to play that game will likely know very few players who play the game but as they play public matches they will find players they enjoy playing with. It is those players they find to be helpful in co-operative matches and deadly in versus matches that they will be more likely to add to their friends list and actively seek to join matches with in future games.
In this way gamers are egocentric, they enjoy the competition of playing with that person, or feel they function better as a team and therefore seek to repeat that experience. Does this change of 'community' effect gamers or the gaming community in any way? Yes, a lot, online gaming relies on online social networks to exist, if people only played with the people in their local area, or physical community then there wouldn't be any need for online gaming at all.
Social networks become gaming communities without realising it as well, look at the gaming that constantly takes place on Facebook, look at the Google Wave beta at the moment, its filling up with people running basic role playing events and games. These Wave RPGs are done in the old fashioned dice roll system, sometimes with a dice rolling bot and other times with actual physical dice rolls performed at home and shared through an honor system (Ars Technica).
So Boyd's new community definition, the egocentric selfish self-serving community is really something that the gaming industry relies on. People form their gaming communities so they can play with people they prefer to play with, when they do so they're happier playing the game and enjoy the experience more. When they're enjoying the experience more they're more likely to continue playing or buy the next game from the same company to get more of that positive experience.
“You can choose your friends but you can't choose your family,” the old saying seems fairly relevant when you convert it so something such as “You can't choose your community but you can choose your online community.” Boyd's community means everything to online gaming and the old function of the word means next to nothing.
Boyd, D. Friends, friendsters, and the top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. Retrieved 25/11/2009 from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1418/1336
Stokes, J. Google Wave: We came, we saw, we played D&D. Retrieved 25/11/2009 from http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/10/google-wave-we-came-we-saw-we-played-dd.ars
(Yes I realise I reference Ars Technica a lot).
Boyd's notion of community, pertaining to online communities, asserts that “people define their community egocentrically,” suggesting that people create their online communities to serve their own needs, that they choose their friends in a self-serving fashion. This is in line with online gaming communities as well, gamers will pick and choose their friends within a game and if they persist playing that particular game they will more than likely being playing exclusively with friends they have previously played with.
A perfect example, at least for myself would be for the game Left 4 Dead (2008) in which the gamers are very reliant on the others on their team to progress through the levels, be it in co-op or versus mode. Gamers beginning to play that game will likely know very few players who play the game but as they play public matches they will find players they enjoy playing with. It is those players they find to be helpful in co-operative matches and deadly in versus matches that they will be more likely to add to their friends list and actively seek to join matches with in future games.
In this way gamers are egocentric, they enjoy the competition of playing with that person, or feel they function better as a team and therefore seek to repeat that experience. Does this change of 'community' effect gamers or the gaming community in any way? Yes, a lot, online gaming relies on online social networks to exist, if people only played with the people in their local area, or physical community then there wouldn't be any need for online gaming at all.
Social networks become gaming communities without realising it as well, look at the gaming that constantly takes place on Facebook, look at the Google Wave beta at the moment, its filling up with people running basic role playing events and games. These Wave RPGs are done in the old fashioned dice roll system, sometimes with a dice rolling bot and other times with actual physical dice rolls performed at home and shared through an honor system (Ars Technica).
So Boyd's new community definition, the egocentric selfish self-serving community is really something that the gaming industry relies on. People form their gaming communities so they can play with people they prefer to play with, when they do so they're happier playing the game and enjoy the experience more. When they're enjoying the experience more they're more likely to continue playing or buy the next game from the same company to get more of that positive experience.
“You can choose your friends but you can't choose your family,” the old saying seems fairly relevant when you convert it so something such as “You can't choose your community but you can choose your online community.” Boyd's community means everything to online gaming and the old function of the word means next to nothing.
Boyd, D. Friends, friendsters, and the top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. Retrieved 25/11/2009 from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1418/1336
Stokes, J. Google Wave: We came, we saw, we played D&D. Retrieved 25/11/2009 from http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/10/google-wave-we-came-we-saw-we-played-dd.ars
(Yes I realise I reference Ars Technica a lot).
Monday, November 16, 2009
Hah, That's Rich........ Media
For the blog question this week we were asked to evaluate how rich media represent risks to people in my profession. Admittedly I was stumped for an answer to this as my profession is videogames and the industry responsible for some of the richest media available. There are several considerations to be made however, a major one being accessibility for the disabled, another being the inherent behavioural addiction that can affect people who enjoy the content you’re providing. Without sinking this blog entirely into an ethical debate on the apparent frivolity or necessity of play this blog entry will outlay these two major risks inherent with the richer media.
Rich media as a theory evaluates the effectiveness of a communication form with the more effective being ‘richer’ and the less effective being ‘leaner’ (R. H. Daft and R. H. Lengel). For example, text is fairly ambiguous and can often have several meanings attributed to the same phrases, simple text on a page addressed to nobody in particular would be an example of lean media and a face to face coffee shop conversation between two acquaintances would be an example of rich media (University of Twente).
Without a doubt the richest media available is plain old face to face conversation, this allows participation in the widest variety of ways and has the highest possible chance of the message being understood completely. In this conversational media participants can use their words, their body language, their facial expressions and their tone (not to mention smells and posture) to alter the meaning of their communication as required. They also have the opportunity to respond to feedback and questions and alter their approach if the message isn’t being received. Obviously language is the biggest hurdle here along with visual and hearing disabilities.
After face to face are the pseudo face to face communication methods, real time video communication for example. This offers very nearly the same richness as regular face to face conversation with obvious differences. For example, the camera generally won’t display the entirety of the communicator so some of the intended body language may be lost (along with the aforementioned smells). Once again these rich media suffer drawbacks for the disabled for the very same reasons.
For these reasons videogames suffer from the same drawbacks, the realism offered by today’s graphic engines count for absolutely nothing if you cannot see. The same goes for ultra high fidelity sound to the deaf. These problems may seem absurdly obvious but I believe they rate very highly on the drawbacks of the richer media.
Moving on....
Virtual reality is a concept that has been toyed around with for many years now. VR is being used for a variety functions such as treating post traumatic stress disorder for war veterans (Hamilton et al). The idea of creating a complete virtual space that a person could ‘enter’ or have their sensors surrounded by develops mixed feelings by everyone. Surely the experience could be very entertaining and offer unparalleled immersion when compared to current on-screen gaming technologies. But, as any gamer will tell you, the more a game is able to pull you into its world and make you a part of it the more time you’re able to sink into it without realising you’re doing so.
Doing things you enjoy is addictive, whether it is lawn darts, painting miniature models or videogames. Seeing as this is an entry about risks, behavioural addiction must be a part of the discussion when considering videogames. Videogames get a bad rap when it comes to a lot of things, a rap I believe it doesn’t deserve. But I also believe there are ethical considerations to be made for creating future generations of games, ones that will be undoubtedly more realistic and presumably more entertaining (this really isn’t the place for a debate about realism vs abstraction, maybe some other time).
Entertainment is addictive regardless of its form and videogames can reach such a large audience due to their ability to cater to so many different wants and needs. But as new and more interesting ways to reach these audiences are developed the industry runs the risk of firstly, creating massive public backlash on itself and secondly, drastically altering the human experience.
Don’t get me wrong, I think there’s room for improvement in the human experience. But surely a code of ethics for changing it isn’t a bad idea.
-Gibbo
Daft, R. L., and Lengel, R. H. “Information Richness: A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organizational Design,” in Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Homewood, IL, 1984, pp. 191-233.
University of Twente webpage entry on Media Richness Theory, retrieved 17/11/2009 from http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Mass%20Media/Media_Richness_Theory.doc/
J. O'C. Hamilton, E. T. Smith, G. McWilliams, E. I. Schwartz, J. Carey “Virtual reality How a Computer-Generated World Could Change the Real World” Retrieved 17/11/2009 from http://www.businessweek.com/1989-94/pre88/b328653.htm
Rich media as a theory evaluates the effectiveness of a communication form with the more effective being ‘richer’ and the less effective being ‘leaner’ (R. H. Daft and R. H. Lengel). For example, text is fairly ambiguous and can often have several meanings attributed to the same phrases, simple text on a page addressed to nobody in particular would be an example of lean media and a face to face coffee shop conversation between two acquaintances would be an example of rich media (University of Twente).
Without a doubt the richest media available is plain old face to face conversation, this allows participation in the widest variety of ways and has the highest possible chance of the message being understood completely. In this conversational media participants can use their words, their body language, their facial expressions and their tone (not to mention smells and posture) to alter the meaning of their communication as required. They also have the opportunity to respond to feedback and questions and alter their approach if the message isn’t being received. Obviously language is the biggest hurdle here along with visual and hearing disabilities.
After face to face are the pseudo face to face communication methods, real time video communication for example. This offers very nearly the same richness as regular face to face conversation with obvious differences. For example, the camera generally won’t display the entirety of the communicator so some of the intended body language may be lost (along with the aforementioned smells). Once again these rich media suffer drawbacks for the disabled for the very same reasons.
For these reasons videogames suffer from the same drawbacks, the realism offered by today’s graphic engines count for absolutely nothing if you cannot see. The same goes for ultra high fidelity sound to the deaf. These problems may seem absurdly obvious but I believe they rate very highly on the drawbacks of the richer media.
Moving on....
Virtual reality is a concept that has been toyed around with for many years now. VR is being used for a variety functions such as treating post traumatic stress disorder for war veterans (Hamilton et al). The idea of creating a complete virtual space that a person could ‘enter’ or have their sensors surrounded by develops mixed feelings by everyone. Surely the experience could be very entertaining and offer unparalleled immersion when compared to current on-screen gaming technologies. But, as any gamer will tell you, the more a game is able to pull you into its world and make you a part of it the more time you’re able to sink into it without realising you’re doing so.
Doing things you enjoy is addictive, whether it is lawn darts, painting miniature models or videogames. Seeing as this is an entry about risks, behavioural addiction must be a part of the discussion when considering videogames. Videogames get a bad rap when it comes to a lot of things, a rap I believe it doesn’t deserve. But I also believe there are ethical considerations to be made for creating future generations of games, ones that will be undoubtedly more realistic and presumably more entertaining (this really isn’t the place for a debate about realism vs abstraction, maybe some other time).
Entertainment is addictive regardless of its form and videogames can reach such a large audience due to their ability to cater to so many different wants and needs. But as new and more interesting ways to reach these audiences are developed the industry runs the risk of firstly, creating massive public backlash on itself and secondly, drastically altering the human experience.
Don’t get me wrong, I think there’s room for improvement in the human experience. But surely a code of ethics for changing it isn’t a bad idea.
-Gibbo
Daft, R. L., and Lengel, R. H. “Information Richness: A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organizational Design,” in Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Homewood, IL, 1984, pp. 191-233.
University of Twente webpage entry on Media Richness Theory, retrieved 17/11/2009 from http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Mass%20Media/Media_Richness_Theory.doc/
J. O'C. Hamilton, E. T. Smith, G. McWilliams, E. I. Schwartz, J. Carey “Virtual reality How a Computer-Generated World Could Change the Real World” Retrieved 17/11/2009 from http://www.businessweek.com/1989-94/pre88/b328653.htm
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The Emergence of Convergence
The videogame industry owes much to convergence. The earliest videogames were built on computers designed for other tasks and were perhaps one of the earliest examples of computers being used for a purpose other than their primary function. OXO (1952) and Tennis for Two (1958) are just two of the earliest examples of computing power being used for entertainment, a past-time that has continued to grow since those early days.
Convergence or rather ‘technological convergence’ is a term that covers a number of phenomenons that are becoming common place within our increasingly wired and global society. Convergence as a term describes multi-purpose devices that were created to replace several single purpose devices, for example; a telephone that is also a gaming platform, it can also be used to describe the amalgamation of online technologies and media content that is viewable on the web (Flew, 2008). Or just simply, when you get several forms of popular technologies someone is going to try and find a way to mash them together and deliver them to you in a more convenient package.
For videogames there are endless examples of convergence. I could refer you to the front of my PS3 that has so many mystery holes bordered by incomprehensible hieroglyphics that even an avid Gizmodo reader would have trouble naming them all. Each (presumably) used as a means to transfer media onto the device. This allows the PS3 to be used as a media device that can among other things create slide-shows of pictures or view home movies from memory cards/sticks.
The Xbox 360 on the other hand links with a Microsoft application known as Windows Media Center and allows the console to function as a sort of relay to display media content on your TV from your PC. Movies can also be downloaded directly onto the Xbox 360 via a Netflix subscription Briefly take the time to visit this link and read this article if you can and witness future convergence in action. Facebook is coming soon to an Xbox 360 near you. Take note how each of these technologies and media slot together. All these popular technologies are being combined on a single device for user convenience.
Many consider the Playstation 3’s support of Blu-ray to be a major if not the major factor in the recent format battle between Toshiba and Sony. Yet another clear example of convergence, so many people use their gaming console to watch movies that their preferences became a deciding factor in the adoption of a new media format. I speak from personal experience in saying that I would probably not have bothered with Blu-ray at this point if I didn’t own a PS3. However, I find myself purchasing the Blu-ray version instead of the DVD whenever a film comes out I wish to buy simply because I have the technology available to me.
There are infinite examples of convergence in the gaming industry; social games on Facebook, Steam as an instant messaging client and a digital game/media distributor, Microsoft Messenger’s availability on the Xbox 360, web access on the PSP and of course, Apple’s iPhone to name a few.
Convergence of technologies seems to be a natural pattern that doesn’t show any signs of slowing. However it’s amusing to see that the more technologies they lump onto devices like the Xbox 360 the more it becomes like a Personal Computer. The simpleness of the console over the PC has always been one of its major superiorities as a gaming platform and it will be very interesting to watch and see if this convergent path takes the videogame console away from what consumers really want.
-Ryan “Gibbo” Gibson
Flew, T (2008). New media: an introduction 3rd edition Oxford New York
Wikipedia entry on Technology Convergence Retrieved 7th October 2009 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_convergence
Wikipedia entry on first video game Retrieved 7th October 2009 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_video_game
Wikipedia entry on Blu-ray Retrieved 7th October 2009 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc
Wikipedia entry on Windows Media Center Retrieved 7th October 2009 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Center
Beaumont, C (2008). Blu-ray wins Retrieved 7th October 2009 From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3356484/Blu-ray-wins.html
Convergence or rather ‘technological convergence’ is a term that covers a number of phenomenons that are becoming common place within our increasingly wired and global society. Convergence as a term describes multi-purpose devices that were created to replace several single purpose devices, for example; a telephone that is also a gaming platform, it can also be used to describe the amalgamation of online technologies and media content that is viewable on the web (Flew, 2008). Or just simply, when you get several forms of popular technologies someone is going to try and find a way to mash them together and deliver them to you in a more convenient package.
For videogames there are endless examples of convergence. I could refer you to the front of my PS3 that has so many mystery holes bordered by incomprehensible hieroglyphics that even an avid Gizmodo reader would have trouble naming them all. Each (presumably) used as a means to transfer media onto the device. This allows the PS3 to be used as a media device that can among other things create slide-shows of pictures or view home movies from memory cards/sticks.
The Xbox 360 on the other hand links with a Microsoft application known as Windows Media Center and allows the console to function as a sort of relay to display media content on your TV from your PC. Movies can also be downloaded directly onto the Xbox 360 via a Netflix subscription Briefly take the time to visit this link and read this article if you can and witness future convergence in action. Facebook is coming soon to an Xbox 360 near you. Take note how each of these technologies and media slot together. All these popular technologies are being combined on a single device for user convenience.
Many consider the Playstation 3’s support of Blu-ray to be a major if not the major factor in the recent format battle between Toshiba and Sony. Yet another clear example of convergence, so many people use their gaming console to watch movies that their preferences became a deciding factor in the adoption of a new media format. I speak from personal experience in saying that I would probably not have bothered with Blu-ray at this point if I didn’t own a PS3. However, I find myself purchasing the Blu-ray version instead of the DVD whenever a film comes out I wish to buy simply because I have the technology available to me.
There are infinite examples of convergence in the gaming industry; social games on Facebook, Steam as an instant messaging client and a digital game/media distributor, Microsoft Messenger’s availability on the Xbox 360, web access on the PSP and of course, Apple’s iPhone to name a few.
Convergence of technologies seems to be a natural pattern that doesn’t show any signs of slowing. However it’s amusing to see that the more technologies they lump onto devices like the Xbox 360 the more it becomes like a Personal Computer. The simpleness of the console over the PC has always been one of its major superiorities as a gaming platform and it will be very interesting to watch and see if this convergent path takes the videogame console away from what consumers really want.
-Ryan “Gibbo” Gibson
Flew, T (2008). New media: an introduction 3rd edition Oxford New York
Wikipedia entry on Technology Convergence Retrieved 7th October 2009 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_convergence
Wikipedia entry on first video game Retrieved 7th October 2009 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_video_game
Wikipedia entry on Blu-ray Retrieved 7th October 2009 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc
Wikipedia entry on Windows Media Center Retrieved 7th October 2009 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Center
Beaumont, C (2008). Blu-ray wins Retrieved 7th October 2009 From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3356484/Blu-ray-wins.html
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)