In Ian Bogosts’ How to Talk About Video Games, the author spent a chapter focusing on a controversy that came from a game that deals with words. Scribblenauts allows the player to simply write a word, and a functional object appears on the screen that can be used to conquer the games’ challenges. When typed in the game, the word “Sambo,” often referring to “blackness” and the 1930s character in The Little Black Sambo, produces a watermelon-looking fruit. This clearly created generated some outrage.

Ironically, the word “sambo” actually has Spanish roots and represents a watermelon-looking plant. Interestingly enough, the maker of Scribblenauts didn’t even know what the word meant, yet, somehow this seemingly stereotypical slur made its way into the game.

What I like about Bogosts’ chapter is that he does not draw a simple conclusion from these findings. It’d be easy to say: “the game-maker was ignorant, and this term shouldn’t have even been used.” But Bogost argues that this controversy was the whole point of Scribblenauts; it’s a game designed to make us question what we already know or don’t know about words, and subsequently, we can draw new conclusions or alter the way we use them in our writing and our speech. Confusion like this opens doors to new conversations and uncomfortable, but necessary, dialogue that will help us try to make progress. In this sense, Bogost argues that the game was a complete success.

Bogost makes reference to a speech by Barack Obama in 2008 that was successful not because it solved anything about racial issues, but because it simply recognized the mess that exists and demonstrated the need to try something new rather than continuing to place blame and become separate. This takes us far out of context in terms of Scribblenauts, but it also shows how a silly little game can have such powerful undertones. Bogost takes what we know about Scribblenauts and challenges us to think about the game in a new light: it is not solely about words and their meanings, but also about questioning what we know and striving to rethink their uses in different contexts.

The first chapter of How to Talk About Videogames by Ian Bogust is titled “The Squalid Grace of Flappy Bird”. His first sentence gets right to the point, drawing the reader in, when he says, “Why playing stupid games staves off existential despair”. This statement is so bold and has nothing before it that it almost shocks the reader into continuing to read. It is a statement that hooks the reader and makes him/her want to know why someone would write this. It gives insight into what Bogust is attempting to get to the bottom of, why do we play stupid games.

Later in the chapter, Bogust dives deep into the makeup of Flappy Bird. He discusses the physical design of the game, meaning what it actually looks like as you play. This gives the reader a visual to picture the game in their head and help them understand just what Bogust is referring to. Bugust also talks about the tone of the game. He believes that the game has no feeling and is indifferent to the outside world. It doesn’t care how good you are or what you’re doing, it will be hard no matter what.

Bogust uses several games in addition to Flappy Bird in order to provide other examples of “stupid games”. He uses games like Tetris, Pac-Man, Bejeweled, and others. All of these games he believes are addictive games. Games that will make you say just one more and you end up playing for another hour. The goal of this chapter is to try to understand why games are addictive and why we still play games that make us mad.

In Sim Sin City: Some Thoughts About Grand Theft Auto 3, Gonzalo Frasca begins the article arguing the idea that Grand Theft Auto 3 and video games like it promote violence. He backs up his argument with some pretty weak facts. He states that there have been zero deaths caused by video games as of today, but books, such as The Bible, have proven to have killed millions of people. Frasca sees the extreme violence as an example of why GTA3 is considered to be an important game because he believes it changes the way people think of games. He continues to explain that the limitless freedom allows for the extreme violence. In Grand Theft Auto, a player can do practically anything like steal a car, repair and paint a car, kill people randomly, use crazy weapons limitlessly, etcetera without repercussions. Before virtual reality games like GTA, you could only get similar freedom in roleplaying games, but never as much as GTA. Frasca argues that freedom is what sells this game. It’s what makes the game so appealing. He compares GTA3 to a similar game called Shenmue. Although they are both narrative, single-player games that take place in a huge city and allow freedom of play, one flopped and the other succeeded. Frasca feels that Shenmue was so unsuccessful because it doesn’t offer the same levels of freedom as Grand Theft Auto 3.

I’ve played GTA3 a couple of times before, and I can agree that there is a lot of freedom allowed in the game. The freedom is the only reason why I’ve played in the past, but it is also the reason why I’ve only played a couple of times. I argue that the freedom in GTA is also a flaw. I couldn’t tell you what the purpose of the game is because when I play I just do whatever I feel like doing, and that gets old. At some point, I want to do something with purpose. I don’t play video games to aimlessly wander, but rather to play a game. I believe games have rules and restrictions for a reason. Without them are you still playing a game or is it just a pastime?

Frasca, Gonzalo. “Sim Sin City: Some Thoughts about Grand Theft Auto 3.” Game Studies. Game Studies, Dec. 2003. Web. 20 Oct. 2016. <http://www.gamestudies.org/0302/frasca/>.

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

http://press.etc.cmu.edu/content/chapter-5-digital-media

In a 2010 ETC article, the author discusses the game of EA’s Madden. Here Alice Robison breaks down the main reason why Madden is so popular. A majority of the video game’s consumers purchase the new and updated version of the game because of the continually evolving features of the game (Robinson). For example, it originally started as a game in which only the players mattered. But now it has become a game in which players have control over managerial positions, coaching decisions, money, and drafts. As a result of this life-like and hands-on feature, gamers enjoy being able to connect with all aspects of the National Football League. Another enticing quality of Madden is the miniscule details of the game itself. Graphically, the video game focuses on creating realistic images and sounds that appeal to all of one’s senses. The cheering of the crowd as well as the vibrant colors truly makes one feel as if they are right there on the field. Also, Madden attempts to simulate the game of football as best as possible. The life-interaction from the player to the game is about as accurate as one can get while remaining still on a couch. Robison claims that what makes Madden so popular is the ability to accurately portray a very interactive sport. However, this does make me question, why Madden. What sets it apart from the rest of all other video games, especially those pertaining to sports or even more specifically, football? And if EA is constantly releasing a new copy every year, do they hold back a little something from us each year? Or do they just miraculously get more creative?

Citation:
By Focusing on the Content around Their Characters, Nintendo Has Established a Line of Franchises That Revolve around Core Games and Characters That Span across Many Different Games. They Have Mario, Zelda, Samus, Kirby, Just to Name a Few. And These Fran. “ETC Press.”Chapter 5: Digital Media. ETC Press, 16 Jan. 2010. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.

The article that I read was called “FIFA, the video game: a major vehicle for soccer’s popularization in the United States” by Andrei Markovits and Adam Green. These two men are professors at the University of Michigan in Political Science and Economics respectively. These men combined to write a scholarly article about a video game. They talk about how the high popularity of FIFA has increased the number of people playing and watching soccer. They even predict that FIFA may help project soccer into the “big 4” of sports, which soccer is already in in my opinion because who even plays hockey? Soccer is on the rise while sports like hockey and baseball are becoming less popular.

They argue that FIFA, which is made by EA Sports, is a key factor as to why soccer is rising in popularity in the United States. One reason for this is because you don’t have to like soccer to enjoy the video game. FIFA is one of the best multiplayer games to play as you can play with several people at once. People can pick up the game fairly easily and can excel after not having played much. It doesn’t take much practice to be considered above average at FIFA.

By having real teams that you can play with, it exposes these teams to people that don’t watch soccer. They can learn players without ever actually having seen them play. This exposure to the real teams gives people the chance to pick a team to support. This happened to some of my friends. After they started playing FIFA a lot they all had their favorite teams to use and this translated over to real life and now they are big supporters of their clubs. Through things like this, FIFA has increased the popularity of soccer in the United States.

Caro Williams of Carnegie Mellon University compares the massive multiplayer online role playing game World of Warcraft to the legend of Theseus’s ship. Within the legend, the ship is constantly repaired over time until it is completely made of new materials which prompts the question: Is it still the original Theseus’s ship? At what point did it not become the original? Is it original based on the material or the people possessing it? This is true to many online games today as every update brings a new wave of content and patches into the original world.

While some may be small changes such as “a bug fix”, such as armor updates or minor glitches, there are several major changes such as new lands and quests that inevitably changes the structure of the game both economically and socially. The constant updates stretches beyond World of Warcraft and into nearly every game that is put out in recent years. Call of Duty, Minecraft, Grand Theft Auto, and many others all have gone through patches, re-vamping, skin changing, and additional challenges or mini-games added to the main story. Whether or not these changes are beneficial or harmful is based on how one perceives the game.

Williams write that some games such as Tic-Tac-Toe and Monopoly are “classics, and they just stay the same…” despite occasionally getting “makeovers”. The strategies of the games all remain the same. But does is that what make these “classics” classic? I don’t believe that if Grand Theft Auto stopped making online missions and expansions it would make it any more of a classic than a static game such as Nintendo’s Corey in the House or iPhone’s Flappy Bird. Although there are changes, many are still struck with awe or nostalgia when booting up their games. Williams identifies with this as he claims that even though the new World of Warcraft is vastly different now,”…somehow, simultaneously, it is the same WoW, and I get that same sense of recognition and wonder when I log on.'”

He ends the passage on a Douglas Adam quote which urges gamers to not dwell on original aspects of games as they are simply “sentimental souvenirs of the past” and that by doing so destroys the image of the game itself. As someone who grew up on Pokemon Sapphire, Ruby, and Emerald, I found the older black and white games of Blue and Red extremely tedious and boring. But now I find the newer generations of Black, White, and the soon to be added Sun and Moon extremely over detailed and have too many Pokemons to keep up with. Did the generation that grew up on Red and Blue feel that same way about my generation? Change is not a destruction of originality, but instead an addition to it.

Citations

Williams, Caro. “ETC Press.” ETC PRESS. ETC PRESS, 5 July 2011. Web. 21 Oct. 2016. <http://press.etc.cmu.edu/content/world-warcraft-crystle-martin-sarah-chu-dee-johnson-amanda-ochsner-caro-williams-constance-s>.