Passive Viewing is Passing Away

Video games are almost as much fun to watch as they are to play. People participate in many forms of viewing pleasure from television, to musicals and plays, to Youtube and cinema. Video games can function as entertainment for passive viewers as well. Many potential game players may feel intimidated by the complexity of today's video games, "I can't play that, I don't know how to work it," is commonly heard amongst these people. But this complexity can be very engaging for those who sit back to watch gamers navigate the game du jour.
Some games are even designed to promote an active viewership in those not actually playing the game. Newer inventions like the Wii Remote control turn one player spectacles like Super Mario Galaxy into games that other people in the room can participate in. As one player controls the action of the game, another can participate using the second remote freezing enemies, in turn assisting the main player. Other games try to reduce the ammount of graphics displayed on the HUD (head's up display). Designing a game like this allows viewers to see the action on screen without any distractions, much like in a movie.
Games like God of War are meant to promote spectatorship. This is a game that my sister and I used to play together. We both enjoyed watching the game as much as playing it because the graphics were appealing, plus we got the chance to cheer each other on.
The difference between watching video games as opposed to other popular media is that the "main character", rather the person controlling the action on screen, is sitting in the room with the viewer. This allows for a deeper relationship with the action of the narrative. This raises another point, modern video games often lack the traditional narrative structure that is found in other sources of media, but this is an appeal for many game watchers because they too can participate in the narrative.
Being able to participate in video game narratives cultivates a vested interest for the audience in how the narrative progresses.

Copy This

Before this class I had never heard of Bill C-61. I’ve heard of similar laws, but never this one in particular. I must admit that I’m not certain I agree with it. In the United States citizens have been pressured to limit their downloading and copying practices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for years. It is only logical that the “neighbors to the north” would eventually feel pressured to adopt a similar bill into law.

To limit the rights of what Canadians do with property they have legally obtained is unjust. Although there are laws prohibiting the use of personal property in causing harm (car accidents, handgun regulation, fire codes, etc.), who is really being harmed in this case? Production companies have the right to protect their material from being stolen, hence the DMCA and the proposed Bill C-61, but what about those supporters of said multi-media industries? People pay hard earned money to purchase CD’s, posters, artwork, and DVD’s. To regulate what can be done with their personal property seems to step on the toes of personal-freedom. My iPod is full of songs from the multitude of CD’s I own. My sister listens to her CD’s on her phone because she’s able to transfer them through her computer. To make these things illegal seems like an imposition. To bar a mother from making a copy of a disk bought for her child simply because the original would most likely get ruined seems ludicrous. Again, I understand that Bill C-61 is aimed more at those who redistribute copied material for their own personal gain, but in this modern information age outlawing most means of copying digital materials also seems to limit our right to information.

What really bothers me is how it is as if U.S. corporate interests, in some regards, influence Canadian political institutions. On a grand scale, political bonds have been formed between the U.S. and Canada that are completely indispensible in our mutual co-existence. Some too are corporate. But the idea of media industries in the States holding sway over decisions in Ottawa makes me uneasy. Who knows, if Bill C-61 passes, downloading and file-sharing practices may still flourish as they have I the States under the DMCA.

Though, to me, the claim that these laws are meant to protect the artist’s interest primarily is a cop out. Certainly they do protect the artist to a degree, but the primary beneficiaries of these laws are the companies that produce such media material on a grand scale. So many corporate interests are invested in the mass distribution of movies and music that, in the face of a new digital age, they can be found the world over, lobbying to maintain their relevance in an ever evolving digital culture.

Support of Bill C-61 seems like a voluntary cap on one’s personal freedoms. The use of private property purchased legally within the framework of law, when not used to harm another (physical, theft, defamation, etc.), should be up to the discretion of the consumer.

V.C.R.: Virtual Communal Realities

Without realizing it, people belong to, and participate in, many online communities. Every day users log onto MSN to chat. On facebook people upload picture of everything (trips, interests, hobbies, etc) while conversing about the days events, planning their lives. People are becoming more reliant on technological means of communication to carry out their days, and the majority of these means of communication make up what can be considered online “communities”. Myself, I am part of facebook. I have MSN. I find that World of Warcraft (WoW) can be a bonding experience for everyone from siblings and strangers. These are the places (I use that term loosely when referring to virtual locations) where people form the ties that bind, sometimes be referred to as “communities”.

All of these online places provide people with the opportunity to socialize. This type of socialization may not be possible otherwise. Time constraints and great distance are only two factors that virtual communities can overcome. MSN may simply be a way to communicate with friends, but facebook take this a step further. Billed as a social networking website, facebook allows users to interact with each other in a more immersive way. With the ability to upload pictures, play games, use various applications comparing movie, book and music tastes with all your friends, facebook is an online community that allows people to find out things about old friends, find new ones, and get to know them on a more “personal” level. Something like WoW actually allows people, as their avatar characters, to interact with each other online in a multitude of hair-raising, skill testing scenarios. This kind of online community creates personal relationships in a different way. Here, it is easy to meet new people every day and see how well you get along while being together in a virtual space.

To say that communal spaces online aren’t real simply because they’re virtual is taking something away from them. There are real emotions, real convictions and real relationships formed in virtual spaces every single day. MSN and facebook seems to unite people who are old friends, strengthening the bonds that tie them. Whereas WoW allows users to form new ties and strengthen them through a trial of fire. In a game community like WoW, people learn how to be leaders, the value of teamwork, planning, patience, and how to get along with just about anyone they come across.

What makes virtual communities seem real is that the things people learn and share in them can translate into every day life. Becoming closer with existing friends, being a leader, knowing how to organize and prioritize and engage in a positive dialogue with strangers are all positive attributes that can be exercised in the virtual world before becoming part of the real world. These are invaluable social and communal tools that are found throughout virtual communities which, to an extent, make them real.

The Racial E.T.A.

Accounts of racist interactions online are not shocking, nor are the instances of disassociation and segregation, intentional or otherwise, of minorities in online video game cultures. To me it isn’t surprising for one primary reason; although the internet is viewed as progressive, just like online communities are seen as new and cutting edge, it does not change people’s belief structures, biased opinions, or ignorant outlooks on others in society. Actually, the internet may have the potential to bridge some of these gaps, but more often than not someone who has adopted a racist standpoint will adhere to their beliefs even through a “progressive” medium like the internet.

What I found interesting in these articles is that online communities are less an alternative reality that people engage in and more of a mirror of reality. Although depictions of race (in regards to Avatars) are under the control of each individual user, the reactions to them seem hauntingly real. Regardless of the gamers’ actual race, people react to the avatar they see and not always in a positive way. The lack of “skins” to represent minorities in gaming cultures illustrates an underlying exclusion of a minority market. This may be another factor that helps foster racist behavior in online communities.

Some of these articles dealt directly with the issue of a lack of representation for minority users in online gaming communities. It seems though that simply broadening depictions of minorities in these games does little to change people’s racist opinions. Even if it doesn’t change how people see minorities, it is important to provide appropriate tools to create accurate visual depictions so that every person is provided equal representation. Because online communities tend to mirror actual society it is hard to envision an online environment where racism doesn’t exist, but implicit exclusion will do nothing to change this unfortunate reality. Just as in reality, the only way we can challenge racism is with education, tolerance, and action, creating a truly equal, progressive online world.

Choose the Life you Lead

If I were to engage in an online world, it would have to be World of Warcraft. In fact, because of this class, and this blog assignment in particular, I had been thinking about/seriously considering trying an MMORPG (something that will invite many colorful comments from my friends I am sure). So, I went to the WoW (World of Warcraft) website and found out they had a free 10-day trial promotion, and activated my trial account. For the first time in my life I had created an avatar to traverse a virtual landscape.

I was interested in WoW specifically because I know many people that play it. These people always give the game glowing endorsements, and whenever they regale their stories of conquest they are quite enthusiastic. WoW is the most popular online game right now, and that was another factor in my choosing it. The chance to interact with so many people in this virtual landscape is definitely one of its draw. So now I exist online, with my free 10-day trial account, as the Undead Rogue “Chuckzombie”.

The choice of character is the hardest part. How would you like to be viewed online? Do you want to be imposing, large and handsome? Would you rather be a mystical man of mystery? Does a humanoid female best suit you, or would you rather be a powerful orcish woman?

Initially, you choose race and class. Race determines which side of the fight you’re on (Alliance or Horde), and class determines they types of abilities at your disposal. I chose Horde. I became a member of the undead and there were many reasons why. Always a fan of zombies, I was allowed to become a member of the undead in this game, so I did. Also, I appreciated the aesthetics of the character as he looks like a total badass. I liked the sharp features, spiky hair and rotted, grinning teeth. A friend of mine is also part of the Horde, so that played a role in my decision too. The Alliance and Horde cannot speak to one another (they know different languages) and I wanted to be able to interact with my friend, so I decided to be a race that he could speak to.

Next you have the choice of class. We learned recently the levels of popularity of the classes among online players. I decided to be a Rogue, one of the more popular classes. My reasoning was: if rogues are popular, they must be easy to use. Also, the use of blades, stealth and cunning was very appealing to me. And again, my friend (a level 70 healer) has an account for a level 70 rogue, so he suggested that I practice as a Rogue in hopes that I would eventually take over his character.

My character, Chuckzombie, looks nothing like me. I wouldn’t want him to. In the real world I’m happy to look like a living human being. In the virtual landscape of WoW, I wanted a character that fits the part, and looks like he belongs in that mythical landscape. His personality, being an Undead, is sinister and sadistic. But, as evil as Chuckzombie may be, I’m still controlling him, so he can also be helpful and friendly.

I know the first part of this blog was supposed to be hypothetical, but I couldn’t help but experience an MMORPG for myself. The only other avatars I’ve created have been for games like Fight Night (a boxing game for PS2) or The Godfather (also for PS2). In Fight Night I designed my character to look like me, but in The Godfather I did not. I believe that the appearance of the character, their personality and likeness to you, all depend on the game that is being played. In Fight Night, I wanted to be the one punching out all the best boxing champs. In The Godfather, I wanted to play as a hardened thug who wore scars like a badge of honor. When playing a game and creating an avatar, players must always decide the level of immersion, how much of themselves will they put into the character and why. You have to choose the life you lead.

Here we are... but who brought us, and where is here?

Question: what is it that makes MMORPG’s like World of Warcraft and Everquest so popular? Why are they so enjoyable and addicting for millions of people? All over the world people are logging on to the internet to play, people from different cultures, places, and niches that spend large amounts of time and money on MMORPG’s. How were they designed to be so engaging, why, and by whom?

I started thinking along these lines because of a Popular Narrative class I took last year. In that class we focused on film and literary theories and, in a way, pop culture theories can be applied to video gaming because it too is a popular medium. Theories put forth by Roland Barthes, Roger Bromley, and Pierre Macherey dove into the world of literature and popular fictions. They dealt with what literatures could do for, and to, people, all the while trying to understand how fictions both help and harm the societies in which they exist. They attempt to figure out why popular cultures are they way they are, and created their own theories to help others understand it.

Macherey’s theory of literary production, or Bromley’s work on social functions of popular fiction are not encompassing enough to be fully applied to video game culture, in the sense that in the 70’s no one could have known that video game culture would be as popular as it is today. They do not account for a massive virtual world created in an online space. However, they deal with ideology, how it is enacted, understood, and can be constructed and manipulated. This is what I wanted to apply to video games because it seems of great interest. As has been said, MMORPG’s bring people together from all corners of the earth, and not all of them necessarily share RL (real life) ideologies. How might this translate into the real world? Are there dominant ideologies that pervade the whole game space, ideologies that everyone can agree on? Who constructed them and how are they ultimately conveyed?

The only way to truly find out is to venture online to talk to people, find out what it is that drives them to play games like WoW (World of Warcraft), Everquest, or even the growing number of console video games with online capabilities. The research would have to contain elements of anthropological study as well. Unfortunately, people can be unreliable. In a virtual fantasy world, researchers have to be weary of separating RL from myth. Also, trying to understand the one, dominant force behind the creation of any massive multi-player game is problematic due to the fact that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people involved in the creation of any one of these games. Is the director of a video game considered the artist or author of a game as auteurs are for film and authors for literature? I cannot be sure myself, but that is the beauty of research, discovering new ways of thinking about things you think you already know.

The Game Has Changed

In the early years of video games (for argument’s sake we'll say the First and Second generations of gaming), consoles and arcade systems seemed wrought with conflict, uncertainty and loss. Conflict arose (and to an extent still exists) between different publishers of video game software, and developers of home consoles over who would dominate public interest. It seems the main focus of game makers during this period was to create a game compelling enough to play repeatedly, ensuring renewed player interest in the game and medium. The concern lay primarily with creating a fan base of repeat players, customers who would spend their entire allowance, pay check or "couch change" on Space Invaders or the newest Atari or PC game. Of course, early games were all about the fun-factor, being the coolest game on the shelf, but one can also see that these games were developed in a way that was not only meant to be fascinating, but also to create a new, never before seen market place that would remain sustainable for years to come.

As I was growing up in the 80's – post gaming "crash" – it seemed that video games were becoming an increasingly important entertainment medium. The difference between the Second generation and the Third (the Nintendo era) seems to originate not only from the focus on home consoles, in turn causing the slow decline of arcade culture, but also from the style of the games produced. Home games became more intricate. There was more depth in narratives and game play. A wider range of colour, graphics and stylistic techniques were applied making games more appealing than they ever had been before. New technologies allowed developers to store and process more information, allowing players to explore larger “worlds” of a higher graphic caliber. The Fourth generation (the 16-bit times) took this even further, displaying the potential might of video games as entertainment. 16-bit allowed for graphics more clear than ever before, invoking new forms of player interface and interaction within games.

However, up to this point, the majority of games created for play were two dimensional (and often only 2-player on consoles). Side-scrollers, over-head views and third person perspectives lacked the depth of the real world. Some games tried to utilize the technological limitations of the time to create a 3D environment. Doom, the PC game that introduced the first-person shooter genre, was set in a 3D environment. But, more often than not, most games were stuck in the second dimension; that is until the turning point in gaming, the Fifth generation (32-bit/64-bit, CD/Cartridge revolutionary war). The Fifth generation consoles, primarily PS2 and N64, set the stage for a new style of games. Not only were the graphics at this time superior to anything previously seen (perhaps Neo-Geo is the closest predecessor), but these systems fostered the 3D revolution of video games. Playing a video game like Golden Eye, Final Fantasy, or even Mario 64 was more like exploring a simulated world as opposed to simply progressing through “levels”.

Now, the difference between the Fifth generation and the “Next Generation” consoles (Six and Seventh generations) is immense. The last two generations of consoles and games have focused on creating realistic 3D worlds that promote players to explore the virtual reality with which they are engaged. Games like Grand Theft Auto, the Sims, and MMORPG’s like World of Warcraft, involve players with virtual worlds to the extent that they almost feel immersed within the game itself. CD technology permits developers to store more information in a game that was previously allowed, giving gamers more options, variable actions/reactions to what is occurring within the game, making games less linear and more open to discovery. Although many video games still retain the old formula of completing an objective or goal, accomplishing these goals is not always the main focus of a game. It seems that as technology develops at an ever increasing rate, so does the consumer’s desire for more realistic forms of entertainment. Providing players with a more realistic, all-encompassing, entertainment experience wherein the outcome of the game is determined by those playing it, “Next Gen” systems have solidified their spot in entertainment culture, ensuring their position as an economic juggernaut for years to come.