"Every generation needs a new revolution" -Thomas Jefferson



I am writing this in response to the well-thought article on storytelling in video games written by Cowzilla3.

Thomas Jefferson is the only established center of knowledge I will quote in this article, for he was a revolutionary and I wish to argue for the importance of subverting authority, our own independent knowledge, and its importance to freedom (America, Fuck Yeah!). I will not quote scholars or established centers of knowledge, because that would prove hypocritical to and denigrate the point of this article.

Gaming is a subversive medium. Many have argued such, comparing video games to comic books and Rock n Roll. Video games are comparable to comic books and Rock n Roll in that it is a new form of expression created by unestablished artists.

Born as a child to the computer age, video games supported independent development. Anyone who owned a computer and could write code could create a game.(The growth of blogging and the use of the internet is comparable to the growth of video games in its democratic qualities,go DTOID!) Also, production costs were significantly less than any other medium of expression. I remember watching the credit roll of the early Final Fantasy's and being stunned: the games were being made by a team about the size of a typical high school class.

It is because of the initial low cost and market-penetrability of video game production that they became a subversive medium. In this way it was revolutionary in the same way as comic books or Rock n Roll. They represented ideas moving not top-down, but instead across and up in order to challenge and change, not maintain. I use this analogy only in terms of established centers and unestablished centers of entertainment, culture, whatever. Instead of anyone telling us what's what, we made fun of what's what and created our own culture through games. A culture not defined by established centers of entertainment.

The newfangled art styles and creativity in video games were different. This made them subversive. But they also encouraged a new generation to take an active role in the culture they were consuming by entering it, changing it, and exploring it literally. In this way, video games are a medium that encourages action, change, revolution, individuality, etc. in ways that the passive nature of consuming television and films were not (In books people still play an active role, and they are actually the oldest subversive medium).

In this way, video games are as important to the humanities insofar as its purpose in developing new ideas and direction in creating new art and narrative as the teaching of the humanities itself. Ironically, in some ways they are perhaps more important than the established re-hashing of classics and the molding of minds that so many universities engage in. Nothing new will come of the old, nothing will change.



Video games also represent a new merging of formerly separate, distinct mediums. Video games are a combination of painting, computer technology, music, books, film, and of living insofar as living involves actions and reactions. This truly awesome combination of mediums represents many possibilities.

One of the primary enemies of change and advancement is the departmentalization and lack of communication of ideas, scholarly fields, art, social groups, individual people etc. If established centers of knowledge or culture refuse to engage in debate with others, change cannot occur. Compare it to a color pallet, if the colors do not mix then nothing changes and everything looks the same. It is the same with everything else in society. Video games have succeeded in merging many distinct mediums and so alters them, the ideas they portray and encourages new thought.

Due to the aforementioned merging of separate forms of expression, video games are an intensely powerful medium. One particular aspect of gaming makes it potentially more powerful than any other. "Art" or expressive mediums have the never before integrated the aspect of living in the game, that is, actively interacting and affecting the game. Living requires action and reaction. Games have this aspect of action and reaction which means that essentially, one can live in the game, figuratively speaking.

This aspect of living in video games has possibilities to be subversive and...not. In games in which the principally controlled character has limited control and so is in turn controlled by his/her surroundings, the game is not subversive but brainwashing. The gamer is told what's possible, what he/she must do, and generally what's what. Conversely, in a game in which the surroundings are presented neutrally and the principle controlled character has power, and is encouraged to explore and make decisions, the game is subversive in that it encourages the player to change the game and interact with the story. A great example of this is the KOTOR games.

This is why people such as Jack Thompson are so frightened by video games. They represent a powerful new channel for the cultural construction of meaning. This power can be used to both good and bad ends. I will say that games such as Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto use this power in a somewhat irresponsible way. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know there is no encouragement for thought in the acts portrayed in the games. Also, the games give you little choice, basically you must kill people gratuitously. So, the game tells you what's what, they tell you that in order to complete your goals you must kill and maim many people. I remember, I think it was Jim Sterling, using the term "torture porn" to describe Manhunt. This I think sums of the value of such games.

I will now contend Cowzilla3's point that video games should become as "smart" as films and television. Video games should not aspire to be "smart" because that would, as I understand Cowzilla3 saying, diminish its positive subversive qualities. In the aspect of video games as a subversive medium, they should not aspire to anything other than creating new ways of seeing, thinking, and interacting. They should not aspire to become an established center of culture, for then they become the new establishment molding thought and preventing the sacred right of the power of the individual mind. So, video games should show us not something that is "smart" like more established centers of culture but something that is different, new, and challenging.

However, this may be inevitable. Gaming is becoming more of an establishment every day. Increasing production costs are now creating an environment in which more established corporate entities decide what to create opposed to more creative independent minds.

So what is so great about subverting things? It is the key to our power as individuals and our power to create change. If we subvert established culture, we are creating our own culture and allowing ourselves our full right of self-actualization and freedom. If we subvert established culture, we are free to explore and build our own independent lives. We can enjoy our full potential as humans and fully utilize the absolute function of democracy: to live as equals compelled and controlled by no one.

This is part of the reason I love gaming.

Game on and subvert authority! Those who are the "smart" ones are only those with the power. Find out what they know then turn it upside down!

Recent news has it that gaming might mean much more in the real world than most of us may think. We all know that games can help improve hand-eye coordination and problem-solving skills, but never have I seen such a direct impact from gaming to the literally people's lives in the real world.

America's Army, a video game developed and promoted by the US Army, enabled Paxton Galvanek (formerly star wars character) to potentially save the lives of two car crash victims with severe wounds and head trauma. The game requires tutorials based on real classroom teaching for whichever role you choose in the game, whether it be medic, soldier, etc. in order to continue. Apparently, Galvanek was paying attention.

"In the case of this accident, I evaluated the situation and placed priority on the driver of the car who had missing fingers," he said. "I then recalled that in section two of the medic training, I learned about controlled bleeding. I noticed that the wounded man had severe bleeding that he could not control. I used a towel as a dressing and asked the man to hold the towel on his wound and to raise his hand above his head to lessen the blood flow which allowed me to evaluate his other injuries which included a cut on his head."


In related news, researchers of the New Scientist have recently conducted a study that suggests that the Wii may be useful in training for actual surgical operations. In a test performed by Kanav Kahol and Marshall Smith of the Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center, eight surgeons played Wii games before performing virtual surgery, those who played the games set forth performed 48 percent higher in tool control and precision than those who had not played the games.

This is yet more evidence to bridge the gap between the "real world" and video games, showing that they are not the useless wastes of time many people believe them to be.

[Via Yahoogames and Gamespot]

THIS IS WAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHH *coughcough*!


(Don't ask me why I used this picture, it just appealed to me)

So who will win the 7th gen console war? Come on, don't care? Or are there no winners?

Well, I would just like to say a few things. The last thing I want to be guilty of fanboyism, so I'm doing my best to play it neutral. Prepare to enter the "no fact zone."

The Wii is currently leading the "war." It has sold more than the Xbox 360 in about half of the time. The wiimote is a fun and interesting innovation that has apealed to people in general, it seems especially those priorly unconcerned with "hardcore" gaming. The wii offers a new way to play games, with your body (mmmm sexy). However, I think I am right in saying that many (including myself) are largely unimpressed by the current or likely future selection of games on the console.

In addition to this, the Wii is underpowered and lacks the memory capabilities of the PS3 and Xbox 360. If you are one to use history as any kind of indication of likely future events, you will respect the continual drive for more processing power and more memory and what this might mean to future consoles.

The Wii has created a buzz, one might even say a fad, in the gaming world. Will it last? Who knows. But it has made a significant impact in the mean time.

The Xbox 360 was the first to be released in November 2005. It got off to a slow start, with widespread hardware failure and a slow initial software startup. The 360 is a purist gamer's machine, it doesn't have all of that superfluous bullshit like the PS3 which noone needs which unnessecarily inflates the price, bogs down the PS3, and turns off purist gamers. Anyway, I think that's what many of you would say, or something to that effect.

The early launch of the 360 may prove to be its trump to the PS3, just as the early release of the PS2 and early key exclusive titles gave it its edge in the previous console war.

The 360 has lineups for what you NEED to game, respective of who you are as a gamer. It doesn't attempt to enter the PC realm.

Due to it's intial appeal to the purist gamer and its early launch, the 360 both consumer and developer support and by late 2007 came out with many great exclusive titles. It's online gaming network is unmatched (though it costs $$$). The 360 supports HD-DVD format, but gamers must buy an attachment to play these movies. The HD-DVD has a maximum dual-layer capacity of 30igs.

The PS3 was released in November 2006, within a few weeks of the Wii. In the time since, the PS3 has become arguably the single most reviled tech object on the internet. It has lost exclusives to the 360 and has sold less than half of the total hardware units of the 360, in half the time of course. It's initial high price point of 499 and 599 was seen as out touch with the average consumer an incompatible with a mass-market consumer electronic device for gaming. The PS3 has yet to release a killer app like the 360, but it has had half the time to do so.

But the PS3 (at least on paper) has more processing power and more memory (hard drive) than the 360, and as we have just seen, an easily modifiable hard drive. The PS3 supports DVD and Bluray playback out of the box. The memory capacity of the Bluray disc is astounding, holding 50gigs on a dual-layer disc. It could increase two or threefold if more layers are added. The PS3 could easily become a home PC with Yellowdog Linux support. While it doesn't compete with the 360, its online network is free for owners.

I believe this war is going to become about Bluray vs HD-DVD, as the price of HDTVs (especially LCDs) drop, more consumers will integrate a HDTV into their home. The slow of the economy in the US has probably affected the integration of HDTV into average consumer househlds, which may also be a factor in the war. If this is true, then it may render my ideas about HD-DVD vs Bluray moot.

If Bluray wins, which I believe it currently is leading in sales, then I say the PS3 wins in the long run, hands down. If you think such things as the "format war" don't matter, then this argument doesn't play with you.

But, if you look at the history of computer development, the trend has gone toward more power and more memory. As memory becomes cheaper and Moore's Law continues its deliverance, history has relentlessly moved in this direction. Another historical trend is the integration of media functions in one device. Skeptically and dispassionately, assess which console drives more toward this historical trend.

If you do, I believe you will find the console winner of this generation, at least in terms of hardware sales irrespective of games.

Well, it sounds a bit futile, but what the hell. It takes about ten seconds, and if you're a PS3 owner, and like me you are too poor to own one regardless another console, you want this game ported.

Fight Exclusives! They're not good for gamers!

Fight the power...MAAAAN!

I read an article discussing the future of the Wii and what is does and doesn't represent in innovation. I was impressed, Rarely have I seen academic quality writing on games. But that seems to be what this site is about. Hell, I may even use it in a 40 page paper I plan to write about videogames next semester.

GET SERIOUS!: Roxxorz!

Because we all like to think *this* much about our games:

The video game industry is in its adolescent stage. This is always an awkward stage. New things start growing out of sensitive places, many new disrupting conflicting feelings are born, and one's place in the world becomes confusing. This is the state of the video games industry at this point. The casual gamer's market has exploded with the success of Nintendo's Wii and DS, the once dominant Sony is now firmly in third place in the new console war, anxiety about the place and effect casual games will take is heady, and games in general are reaching the cost, popularity, and production values of films and television.

Video games were conceived at the birth of the computer and television broadcasting technology. A little known engineer for a small Defense Industry firm, Ralph Baer, in 1966 stormed up the idea to develop a game for television sets. He wrote a few pages of notes containing his ideas which he patented and which eventually turned into one of the first gaming systems, the "Brown Box" by 1968. This could play ping-pong, volleyball, handball, soccer, hockey and others.

Video games at this time were obscure and infantile. They generally lacked complexity and had no force in the entertainment industry. Although they showed promise, as the original machine designed by Baer, the Magnavox Odyssey, and the more successful Atari Pong gained financial backing. And thus the video game industry was born.

The evolution and history of the video game industry is quite voluminous despite its short time in the making. It is the material of books and long-winded articles. So, I won't go into too much more detail concerning the history aspect.

In keeping with Moore's Law, computer processing and in hardware technology expanded, advanced, and became cheaper. Soon we got Nintendo's famous Nintendo Entertainment System and later Super Nintendo, then The Sega Genesis, and later in '94 Sony's Playstation.

The 90's were the major growth period of all aspects of the industry from sales and economic size, to advancement in graphics and the processing power of the computer. During the late 90's, with the release of such games as Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, and Resident Evil showed the promise for integrated gaming and cinematic storytelling with the potential depth and length of novels.

During its inception in the 70's, not many expected video games to become as popular as they are today.

But wow has the industry exploded, it is now a multi-national, multi-billion dollar industry. It is also the fastest growing division of the entertainment industry.

I would like to postulate what will become of the video game industry.

Casual gaming will enter into the public consciousness just as pop movies and pop novels and pop television gained popularity. As more people start consuming a particular product, more brackets for marketing and creating these products has to be made. This is what the Wii has done. They have cornered a whole new uncharted area of the gaming market, the casual gamer. The hardcore gamer is still there. As a gamer, this is what eases my mind. However, some things still do worry me.

The PS3 has not even come close to selling as many units in the same space as their PS2. This means that the Wii has managed to convert some former PS2 owners. There have been quality titles released for the Wii (I will not include Wii sports). But the games are overwhelmingly driven toward the casual gamer, the gamer that likes simplicity over complexity, and likes to play with friends. The Wii is also easier to develop for. It has the gimmicky wiimote. This is what has made it so popular. It has developed the same kind of beginning as the PS2.

But, it has the smell of fad (remember when all your school friends had yo-yos?). OMG, everyone go out and get a Wii. This is what I am counting on.

I have not seen anything extremely innovative in what the Wii has done so far. The motion sensor is cool I suppose, but I have yet to see how it is really any better or can do anything extraordinarily different than a normal controller. It requires movement yes. But if I wanted exercise or to play tennis or golf, why wouldn't I simply go out and do the real thing?

So, I hope that the Wii will have only cornered the casual gaming market and not take away from the hardcore gaming market. This seems feasible as a part of the development of the industry. It happened with books and film as well. That is, as these mediums became more popular they branched into different sub markets appealing to different demographics. The people who appreciate games as more of a art-entertainment will continue to be supplied, while a new (or not so new?) pop gaming market emerges more strongly than before.

Who knows though, the Wii may surpirse me and turn out to be a return to the simple roots of gaming which, in the view of some, may be more edgy than what Microsoft and Sony are doing.

My only hope is that the Wii does not stagnate advancement and innovation and doesn't make impossible games that require higher development costs and time.