Patrick

The Blue Shell

Patrick Henderson

10/27/16

This chapter stuck out to me due to its farfetched argument. The idea that the “Blue Shell is everything thats wrong with America” is a very bold statement. Boost backs up as the chapter continues to state the context to his claim, but even then the reasoning falls short. Ian Bogost is trying to argue that the Blue Shell is showing that someone from the very back of a race and ruin everything for the person in first. That is what is wrong with society, he believes, the fact that with blind luck and no effort you can knock someone off their podium who has arguably worked harder and deserves to be at the front.

He defamiliarizes Mario Cart by taking the Blue Shell out of the Mario Cart world. He uses the line “by 2003 everything had changed, and not just in the Mushroom Kingdom.” From this sentence he launches off about real world examples and how this idea of almost cheating to win is toxic. Though he continues with the history of the shell he does it in an almost shaming tone. He writes how Nintendo tried to fix the shell, but they did it by adjusting what place in the race you are. This only means that now the person that throws the shell doesn’t even get to win. They may benefit by moving up but in general it should have no direct affect on their race. Boost wraps up the chapter writing about those who have mastered the “real Blue Shell.” People who have learned how to apply this to their actual lives no longer need to play the game. Those who have managed to mastered the Blue Shell have found the “trump card against the universe.”

Boost does not bring in much outside media in this chapter. Instead he sticks with his own strong opinions. He does delve into the history of the game and consoles to try and legitimize his argument, but most of his points come from his own beliefs. Bogost uses the same tactics in most of his chapters. He starts with a bold claim then works to back it up. In this chapter though he starts with the claim, but then works to make personal connections to try and discourage arguments.

Overall this chapter has some potentially strong points, but his lack of sources and proof hurts its legitimacy. Bogost does not even create strong real world examples to argue with. Though his points did make me reflect on the game and the blue shell aspect, I still felt as though I could easily argue that his claims were too general and bold to be factual.

Vanishing Violence in Videogames and its Influence in Gamers

Gieselmann writes a compelling argument about how war games are changing the perspective kids have on violence. His argument centralizes on the idea that games are glorifying something horrible. He also talks about the average age of a gamer, which was the most interesting point he makes. He writes how the average gamer for the most popular war game at the time, Counter-Strike, was 19. He also writes that on average boys start playing games from the ages 11-12. This exposure is particularly dangerous due to the young kids lack of education. Kids at this age have not yet discussed the political and humanitarian aspects that go into war. Games know how to appeal to their audiences and often work to hide the more gruesome aspects of warfare. In America’s Army, a game created by the US Army for recruitment, there is no blood or bullet wounds. You are always playing as the team labeled Americans, so “the good guys.” It makes war fun, kids do not realize the implications of this violence. It is a dangerous thing to trick kids into thinking war was enjoyable. This argument is one that is debated very often because it does have real world implications in the sense that kids can begin to think they are invulnerable. Enemies also present another level of complexity to a game. Nazis are a commonly used enemy in war games, and by bringing them back they are keeping their image alive. Kids can even play on the sides of the Nazis. Another tactic is not naming the enemies at all, but not associating the group the player has to kill with a certain ethnicity the player feels detached from the violence. Guns are toys, methods to help you play, not tools for killing. When you look at war games through this context a concerning reality is revealed. Kids do not fear war as they should, instead they are almost excited by it. Why this is so important is because kids shouldn’t feel comfortable with war. Guns, death and violence should be terrifying, because they all take away lives. There is no second chance. Instead there is bullet wounds, blood and terror. I believe violent games can be fun, but lack of exposure to how horrible war is can be dangerous for a naive mind. I think back to all the games I play, I have shot plenty of people through my TV screen and never thought twice about it. Yet I don’t believe that it correlates in anyway to my tendencies and personality. I am not more violent because of it. I do agree that without the proper education games can help to feed a dangerous notion that war is about glory not death.

http://www.eludamos.org/index.php/eludamos/article/view/vol1no1-2/3

Skyrim

When I was in 8^th grade I played Skyrim, and it blew my mind. I did not know a game like Skyrim existed. Where the map was seemingly endless, the graphics were amazing and the gameplay was unique. I was obsessed. The day my brothers and I got the game I watch my older brother play it for hours upon hours. I could not wait to play it for myself. Once I got my hands on the controller and started a game of my own all my free time was gone. I explored everything I could find on the map and tried to have my character mimic what my actions would be. For months I invested my time into my character and was very, secretly, proud of him. It was strange feeling envious of a fictional character that I created and controlled. A weird reversal of power for the player to wish he could be the character. Despite this I kept playing until I beat the main story, but even then I wasn’t done, for I created a new character and did it all again. With time I grew tired of the game. The magical feeling of a massive new world was gone, I was simply repeating stories from my previous game. Though I was still discovering new ways to play and places to explore it wasn’t the same. Subtly at first and then very abruptly I grew tired of the game. My love and nostalgia for the game still exists today, but my temptation to play it again has long since died. I blame this on the fact that I kept growing and the game didn’t. It grew old to me and the excitement that drove me to put so much time into was gone, and there was no way to bring it back. When I stopped playing I felt sad yet content, I felt as though I had done all I could, yet I wished I could find a way to revive the game and make it all new again.

Playgrounds

Power Slide: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060214385?dq=playground&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiG5ZP4x7LPAhXGcT4KHbWsC7o4PBDoAQhTMAg

Graveyards: https://archive.org/details/jstor-2763217

Mist Playground: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140231547?dq=playground&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGwfGyxrLPAhVEOT4KHZrDBr44HhDoAQgbMAA

Patrick Henderson-WRI 101-Blog Post 2

I observed the field next to the Union for 30 minutes. I chose to study this particular space due to the openness of it. The field is empty except for a large rugby goal post. This leaves the intensions very vague. The designer did not appear to have a particular purpose in mind when building the space. This intrigued me, I had thought about going to the gym and observing there, yet the was very linear. The only reason people would go there would be to work out. I wanted to focus on an open space where the options were not limited by design. An open field such as this is not the same as a sports field. There are no lines, nothing to indicate its purpose, this only heightened my curiosity. It was a place where anyone could play anything. When I arrived people were playing a game that seem to be baseball and cricket combined. They did not stay long enough for me to figure out the rules exactly. Yet they used the stone stairs/walls that line the side of the field closest to the dorms as a “natural” sideline. They chose to play in the corner of the field, this struck me as very creative. The game would benefit from having lines on the field to indicate out of bounds and other key elements, yet it has none. So the players moved the game into a more confided space that limited the field due to its own natural shape. The baseball game ended, but they were almost immediately replaced by a large Frisbee game. This game instead used the open field as a way to play. They had cones, which they used to change the space to fit their needs. That is the beauty of an open field, it is malleable. The space has no rigid design or purpose; this allows people to transform it in any way they desire. Some used the natural barriers built into the field as a way to play. Others used the openness given to them in the center of the field as their play space. The Field easily accommodated both because the purpose is unclear, the space is theirs to create and play with. I am sure the field at one point had a specific game in mind, but with time it has adapted and grown into a place where people can go to play and create.

Portal – Changing The Game

Portal in its simplest form is a puzzle game with one-sided dialog. At face value it does not seem like much, but once the player jumps through their first portal they are hooked. Portal pushed physics and gravity in games by offering a mechanic that functioned unlike anything the gaming world had done before. Allowing the player to interact and progress through the game by relying on the architecture of the game brought the user and the developers together. The point of each level is not to trick the player, but to make them think. In many ways Portal is a spacial story, it relies heavily on its level design and mechanics to make the game unique. Yet Portal is not just another puzzle game. Plenty of games force the player to interact with the space around them. Portal is unique because it makes the player think only allowing them a blue and an orange portal to solve complex puzzles. This simple design limits the player thus making the game more challenging. If the player was allowed more than one of each portal, then they could solve the puzzle much faster. The mechanic of using portals as a whole is what separates portal the most. The holes in the map allow the player to interact and reshape rooms to their needs and solve the level. Portal is famous for its portals because they allow the architects and the player to work as one.

Yet portal breaks from the classic puzzle game due to its antagonist GLaDOS. She provides the only dialog and therefor the bulk of the story. She is crucial to the game because she gives the player a guide and then an enemy. GLaDOS is a good example of how dialog can change the game. Her tone remains very level due to her robotic voice, yet what she says and her delivery gives away her current state of mind. Her dialog is complex and plan very unclear until the last level of the game, this only adds to the attraction of the game for many. You feel as though you not only solving the puzzles but the mystery of Aperture science as a whole.

Propaganda in Games

Patrick Henderson

9/1/16

Games often have political messages, this has grown more common as first person shooters have gained popularity. Games such as Call of Duty almost always have you playing as the all-powerful US army. You complete absurd missions saving the world from the ‘evil bad guys’. It is a story that cinema loves as well. Americans simply like to remind themselves and the world that we have a very large military. A good case of this is in call of duty black ops; once you complete the last mission you swim to the surface from the bottom of the ocean to be met by an American fleet. Massive battleships, aircraft carriers and of course giant guns surround you as you are pulled aboard. To add onto the American propaganda there are American flags a plenty, countless helicopters, soldiers, and before the cut scene ends fighter jets fly right over your head. (I will link a clip below, start the clip at 1:45 end at 2:15) It is very clearly showing off the US military, and this is a theme many shooters and movies use because it helps draw in customers.

Many games are simpler in their approach. For example, it is very common for the main character of a video game or movie to be anti-government or fighting for some rebellion. People love to fight back against an oppressive system because it makes them feel like they are doing good. Yet some games make you play as the power and money hungry ruler fighting to sit at the top. Such as monopoly and Settlers of Catan. You compete against other players trying to purchase and or gather the available land and resources to win. In order to win you only help yourself, in literal terms you either steal all of their money or all their resources till they can no longer compete. It is a rather dark way to win, and there is very little justice for those that are being oppressed, losing.

Each of these styles have Political motives, favoring big government vs favoring those that fight back against it. Games allow us to experience political opinions that we would not support in our actual lives. They are their own world in which you enter a whole new set of laws and play purely for yourself. Yet when you look into the games and examine what they are it is clear that they are deeply rooted in politics.

(Call of Duty video is linked below, start the clip at 1:45 end at 2:15)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqW_LX8_zFw

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!