(Begins April 19 - Ends April 26)
(*You can always post earlier. If you post later, you will only receive half credit.)
Read Ender's Game, Chapters 1 and 2, and respond to these questions:
Chapter 1:
“Ender doodled on his desk, drawing contour maps of mountainous islands and then telling his desk to display them n three dimensions from every angle.” (Card, 4)
1) Considering the quote above, is this a game? Is this play?
2) When the other children bully up on Ender, is this a game? Is this play?
3) What do you think of Ender’s strategy? What is fair play? How do we, as game designers, ensure fair play? Should we?
Chapter 2
“Peter opened his bottom drawer and took out the bugger mask. Mother had got upset at him when Peter bought it, but Dad had pointed out that the war wouldn’t go away just because you hid bugger masks and wouldn’t let your kids play with make-believe laser guns. Better to play the war games, and have a better chance of surviving when the buggers came again.
“If I survive the games, thought Ender.” (Card, 11)
1) What is the relationship between games and reality? Does violence in reality validate violence in games? Under what circumstances is violence in games acceptable? Can games go too far?
2) Who is the “bad guy” in Peter and Ender’s game? Why would you argue this?
Hello hello.
ReplyDeletehey
ReplyDeletehey-o
ReplyDeleteTest 1,2, 3...sibilance, sibilance
ReplyDeleteChapter 1
ReplyDelete1. As discussed earlier this quarter, for something to be a game, there typically has to be some kind of goal in mind, either as conditions for an endgame or objectives in play. The objective in what Ender is doing seems to be to create accurate contour maps and trick the computer into 3D modeling them, so in some ways, as this is a defined goal, this is a game. However, I would have to say it leans more toward being play. Most of what Ender is doing here is exploratory. There aren’t very many limits placed on him as in a traditional game and although he does seem to have a goal, it isn’t the narrowest.
2. The other children might see this more as a game. Besides a defined goal in getting a rise out of Ender, there is another element to consider, one that was discussed earlier in the quarter: the lack of or perceived lack of consequences. The children picking on Ender don’t seem to care what kind of negative effect they may have on him. Nor are they aware of any danger coming from Ender or else the possibility that an adult might come to stop them and punish them (the monitor was removed from Ender earlier this chapter). As was the case before, though, some of this might be considered play. There aren’t exactly any defined rules, although the goal is clear. But because the focus is narrower and because of the perceived lack of consequences, it leans more toward being a game than play.
3. Ender’s strategy, though harsh, carries a tactical weight to it. He wasn’t necessarily wrong in thinking that one win may not stop the children bullying him. The other two of the gang could have very well tried to avenge their leader or else the lead boy might come back angrier than before. We see this sort of thing happen later on in the book and this same line of reasoning was prevalent in ancient and more modern civilizations; what’s more, in some cases it wasn’t entirely inaccurate.
Fair play, in the loosest terms, is when you and your opponent have equal advantages at the start of a game, contest, match, etc. Less depends on chance and more depends on skills such as good reflexes or tactical prowess. In some cases, though, for a game to be one-hundred percent fair, a new or less skilled player might be issued some kind of handicap if they’re at in especially disadvantageous position. Therein lies the debate over what’s considered fair; technically, the more skilled player should be the one who wins, but when you bring a handicap into things, how much is too much? I for one believe that fair play equates to bridging the gap in skill levels just enough so as there’s not a clear advantage from one player to another; the greater skill will win the fight in most cases.
As game designers, we’re generally obligated to ensure a fair gaming experience. If you submit to the idea that games are a form of escape from the real world, you could argue that, since life is often unfairly balanced, encountering the same imbalance in a game would only add to the frustration of the player. While “flow” as discussed in the previous week, requires a certain amount of challenge to occur, it also requires at least a slight advantage on the part of the player. If a player is loosing for reasons out of their control, then they will be less likely to resume playing and may in fact become convinced that the game’s mechanics are broken and do not merit play. Depending on your classification of fair, though, some times a little unfairness is beneficial. A game that relies mostly on skill but slightly on chance can be all the more exciting, yet some might consider this element of chance unfair. Fighting an opponent much tougher than yourself can be frustrating, but if the right compensations are made (for example, a fast reload/respawn time) it can be just challenging enough to be fun.
Chapter 2
ReplyDelete1. Games have many purposes. Some are escapes from reality, but some are deliberately intended to simulate reality or hone a certain skill intended for use outside of the game. In the wild, animals might play fight to condition themselves for real fights later on in their lives. Children do the same thing, an example of which could be playing house. In some cases, it’s not so much physically training muscle memory or mental skill sets as it is psychologically preparing a child for a situation. Yet even those games intended for escape have to be based, at least partially, on a certain level of reality. Reality is all around us, so it’s only natural that it would seep into games. What’s more, a purely abstract game, with abstract models that move irregularly and with no discernable pattern, might be very hard to follow or play.
When it comes to violence, sometimes violence in reality validates violence in video games. If your video game is supposed to seriously depict war, it probably shouldn’t shy away from violence any more than any other media would when attempting to convey the same message or touch on the same subject. Likewise, sometimes actions or reactions that are considered violence serve to demonstrate impact on the part of the player and, as morbid as it might sound, prove that they have an impact on the world in which they’re playing. For example, if I’m shooting a monster in a game and no damage is indicated, I can’t be sure that I even shot it until it dies. A well placed explosion of gore, though, and I’m sure that I scored a hit. Not only that, I could feel the impact of the hit on a visceral level.
I do believe, though, that there is a line, one that’s hard to see. Often, it depends on what you’re trying to accomplish and the genre in which you’re working. It is possible to demonstrate that violence is bad even when you have massive amounts of it in game; if the result of said violence is disturbing, it’s getting the point across. If you’re making a horror game, there is going to be blood and gore even in the more psychologically frightening games because disgust can factor greatly into fear. There are taboos, though. For example, violence against children is a clear taboo. Even Bioshock, which gave the player the option of harvesting seemingly innocent Little Sisters, cuts away from the worst of the gore in that situation, which in effect is more effective because it leaves what transpired to the player’s imagination. As gamers and artists, we do need to think twice about how gratuitous violence in our games might be and the effects it may have on the wrong consumer.
2. Peter is the bad guy in this game. Ender is playing the part of the “bugger” and thus the villain, but not once does Ender confront or attack Peter. Traditionally, the bad guy attacks first, the hero defends. In addition, Ender does not fight back, even when provoked, even when playing a villain, even after displaying enough physical and mental power to take down a boy much larger than him. His restraint might also be considered heroic. Even if the part Peter is playing is heroic at all, his use of fear and pain is extremely anti-heroic, so the best Peter could be in this situation is an anti-hero.
Chapter 1
ReplyDelete1. I believe that Ender is engaging in play. He is exploring the computer and it's capabilities but doesn't really have a goal in mind.
2. Ender was in a situation where he knows he is in danger. He's not doing something fun by ultimately pointless, so it isn't play and he's not doing something fun with a discernible goal, so it isn't a game. Granted the kids that are bullying him might consider it a game with the goal being to hurt Ender.
3. Ender's actions were understandable and fair. He was confronted by bullies that sought to harm him and he decided to a) single out the leader to even the odds of the fight and b) defeat the bully in a way that would ensure the others would not want to try and continue the fight. Ender was in a survival situation and he did what was necessary to survive, plain and simple.
I think as game designers we are obligated to ensure fair play. I was recently playing the new Mortal Kombat and realized that every time I get to the last two fights my opponents do not follow the same rules that I follow. They could not be grabbed or knocked down and other things I won't get into. Long story short, it pissed me off and ceased to be fun... and since a game is something you do that is FUN and has a goal, I found something seriously wrong with that game. The creators of MK have an obligation to give their players a fair experience that doesn't force you to jump around like and idiot and slowly bring the enemies health down over 10 minutes with ranged attacks.
As game designers we can achieve fair gameplay through balance. One character's move is effective against another character and vise versa.
Chapter 2
ReplyDelete1. I believe games are a product of reality. Nearly everything in a game can be found in reality and even things that don't exist are more often than not based off of something that does.
In my opinion most of the violence in video games is acceptable, it's a matter of what is acceptable for what age group but that's something parents should be responsible for, not the game industry. BUT I think the visual depiction of rape or graphic violence involving children is unacceptable. It makes sense for it to be in the story of a video game but I think visually seeing these things happen would be crossing the line.
2. The "bad guy" in Peter and Ender's "game" is definitely Peter. My reasoning behind this is that Peter is says he's playing a game but Ender feels that his life is in danger during these "games" and there isn't any proof that his life isn't in danger. Peter is a sadistic sociopath with a vendetta against Ender.
1. Ender doodling could at some level be considered a game but it would be a game to him, mostly though i believe this to be play since he doesn't have a main objective.
ReplyDelete2. This is most definitely not play, on some sadistic level this could be considered a game mostly by the bullies.
3. Ender's strategy was a good strategy. I don't know if I would call that fair play but it was a strategy that worked, so that makes it successful. As game designer's we can only make our games and the rules that accompany them and hope the player sees the true value in following those rules. There are measures your can take to try and stop hacking and other things of that nature but unfortunately your not going to be able to stop them all. Yes i do believe that game designer's should try their best to stop unfair game-play because that game that someone is ruining is their baby. I would like to think that the designer would like people to play the game as originally intended.
1. Thee will always be violence in just about everything, especially video games. It all depends on who is playing the game and to what level of violence there is in the game. Violence is in just about everything in reality. Does this validate it being in games? not necessarily. But people in my opinion are naturally attracted to violence. It makes thing interesting. Think about when you see a crash on the side of the road, what do people do? they stop to look. No it;s the games going to far. It's the parents of the kids who let them play the bad ones that go to far. There are age ratings and regulations out there for a reason. If a parent ignores that then tough luck you have no right to complain about a violent game. If the kid acquires the game without the parent's knowledge then again tough luck you might have said no but that shows you the kid will do anything to get and play the game.
ReplyDelete2. Definitely Peter in their game but ultimately I think there are outside influences to Peter's actions. Society helps mold us when we are growing up, if a kid were to grow up in a war torn society think about how they would end up. Also Peter is a little jealous of ender in my opinion.