When I enrolled in this class I mainly did it because I
love manga and games. They constitute a great deal of who I am today. While I
enjoyed the graphic portion of my class very much so (I honestly wish it made
up a greater percent of the class) the gaming portion I find myself not so
drawn to. I don’t mean to say I don’t enjoy it or haven’t learned anything from
it, I just find it odd that learning about something so big in my life doesn’t
excite me more. This got me thinking quite a bit. It has gotten to the point in
which I ask abrupt questions to my friends online about certain things dealing
with gaming. Their natural response was that learning about games is ruining my
gaming experience, but that’s not it. I’m the guy who will take off from work during
E3 just to watch as many different streams as possible. I love learning about
the technical stuff (no so much the programming but more so the creative ideas,
though if you’ve ever seen a Kojima interview you know that creative and
technical are seldom ever disconnected from one another (i.e. the technical
limitations often limit the creative ideas or explorations of the creative side
push the technical side and etc…)) So I don’t believe it’s that my gaming
experience is ruined from learning.
So
this leaves me with the question of why can’t I be excited about learning about
video games in a class on gaming! I’ve come up with a few ideas as to why this
is. The main leading answer for me is that the three authors of our class seem
to be more in line of arguing that games are worth it due to the fact that people can learn from them,
therefore they are worthy of examination. While I think the points made in all
three books are worth examining, I wish there was a book in which focuses on
games as a culmination. I want to read a
book that examines games because they exist, not because there is some alternative
use for them.
To
try to illustrate my point I will use the example of Gee. Gee is a nice mostly
because I find him the least crazy and not up all the way up on his high horse.
When I got to the part using Metal Gear
Solid as an example (172-177) I was completely disheartened. If it were me writing
this portion I would write about how MGS (or MG more likely) changed the gaming
world forever. Instead Gee approached it from a standpoint that MGS challenges gamers as they are not
able to run and gun. Therefore they had to learn a different way of playing, stealthily.
While the example is more than appropriate and flows with everything in the
book to that point, I feel like his experiences are quite different than mine. Gee
oversimplifies points of MGS to a
fine tip that he is able to write with. But he leaves out the details that make
MGS an icon. He makes it an alternative
to the standard whereas I have grown up playing games a bit differently than he
has. Gee views MGS as forcing players to look for alternative
routes. He equivocates this to a new way
of playing games. In his view gamers have to change their style of play
from a standard shooter (3rd person or 1st). This is
completely true. I do not argue that point. But for me growing up I played
games differently. In games as basic as Super
Mario World and Crash Bandicoot exploration
of off route points is encouraged as it give bonuses to players who look out
for secret areas. Therefore, to me,
something like MGS is not so
different when you are already used to the mentality of looking for out of the
way areas. Where Gee should have focused on is not the stealth aspect, but how
the game breaks the fourth wall on several occasions. And yes Gee does acknowledge
this in a way when he references to Mei Ling’s advice about relaxing as this is
a game. What annoyed me is that after that references that he completely ignores
how amazing it was she just acknowledged the player directly rather than snake.
Instead he focused on how he wishes children could just relax and learn. While
it would be great if children could appreciate learning as they do a video game
story, but his blatant disregard about such a monumental act makes me so sad.
 |
| Just the sight beings so many memories to mind... |
Missing
ideas as simple as a view gone unwarranted agitates
me so. This once again comes down to me “nitpicking.” But why is that my view
not being represented in any of the books? Why is it that we can’t look at
games and say it was great for this reasons and this is something important because
it reflects such and such vales? It most likely is just me; I’ve expanded my
expectations too far. Or maybe it’s the overall structure, I believe, is what
irritates me .To exemplify this I will use Gee once again. Gee simply goes
through and explains his experiences and forms principles on them. But at no
point does he provide a counter argument. Nor does he amend a principle. He
decided to just add principles later, like the three principles after the MGS example that proves to be derivates from
the standard games. I understand why he would use a structure like this. It is
most likely easier for those who are non-gamers to understand with his current
structure in place. But what I would prefer (at least once, and there is a good
chance I’ve missed it) is an in-depth look into a derivative, like MGS. For example I would love to see if
a game like MGS helps people to learn
better than a standard game like Game
American McGee's Alice (which is an amazing game as well)? Overall I feel like maybe I’m a bit to
jaded with video games to appreciate all his principles.
Once
again I want to point out I do not mean to sound like I dislike the class. I
think Shannon is a wonderful professor that has given me insight I would not
have found anywhere else. I already stated I especially enjoyed the graphic
portion and in no other class could I play a game for homework or go to a
gaming museum for credit. As my one friend pointed out I should shut up and
just be happy I get credits to talk about video games. I think the main purpose
of this blog entry is here to point out certain inadequacies I feel exists for
either a lack of research on my part or in general. While I came into class
dreading the “Are video games Art?” question I now somewhat long to discuss it
in an academia setting. Anyways, if anyone has made it this far I would love to
hear of anyone else’s expectations either being missed or accomplished from the
class. Or any surprises (negative or positive) you have found over the course
of the class.
