I'm starting to see a lot more commercials for gaming consoles that allow players to dance, gallop, raise pets and do crunches. I'm not sure how far reaching this technology is but I reject the notion of any game that forces me into action and then claims that I'm in control. How can I be if I'm just following the programmed agenda of a bunch of 0s and 1s? I'm not sure what they're grooming me for but I don't like it one jot. Oooh! unless it's a Playstation Move®! Now THAT'S the future!
the burden of wearing a pointed hat...
11/07/2010
Getting Played
I'm starting to see a lot more commercials for gaming consoles that allow players to dance, gallop, raise pets and do crunches. I'm not sure how far reaching this technology is but I reject the notion of any game that forces me into action and then claims that I'm in control. How can I be if I'm just following the programmed agenda of a bunch of 0s and 1s? I'm not sure what they're grooming me for but I don't like it one jot. Oooh! unless it's a Playstation Move®! Now THAT'S the future!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Man, don't know how seriously to take this post, so I'm going to reply with all possible interpretations!
ReplyDeleteSERIOUS: When your avatar is responding to your motions and not visa versa, I'd say you are in control. To further your argument with an analogy, a basketball would exert control on you by 'forcing' you to dribble, shoot, etc in exactly the same way. You are following the agenda of preset game rules.
HALFWAY SERIOUS: Plenty of gamers have had a similar response, that they're fine with a more sedentary approach where they can lounge on a couch and play versus standing and jumping around to achieve roughly the same thing. Really, the general consensus is that these games are meant to make games MORE accessible to a wider audience. How much easier is it to bowl when you just...well, do the motion you do for bowling, than it is to think "okay, I press and hold square to start, and charge up my meter, and release the button at the apex, and then hold left on the joystick to give it spin," etc etc. They're just trying to make it more intuitive.
NOT SERIOUS AT ALL: Damn, how did you get Sony to sponsor you after only two months of posting?!
PS. Do you read comments...? It is so lonely here D:
Of course I read comments, poppet! Especially yours! <3
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, I was only 3/4 serious. It's just a buncha dots and I don't own a system so I don't "care" per se, but i was just noticing a trend. I'm sure that for these games to work it requires consent. Also I'm aware that these games don't work without participation initiated by the gamer. Like, I'm sure there's no such thing as sentient games (yet.) I'm just wondering why simulating real life though movement games is marketing to me as having "control".
Like, I know how to dance, jump and bowl(ish), whatever "control" or "expertise" i gain through using such games is just my modified behavior within the parameters of the program that allows me to get points for it or allows the game to function. That's what I meant by grooming. If that makes any sense.
Running in place isn't the same as running, training an e-dog by moving my hands doesn't express any actual change in cognition in the "dog" and [insert parallel]. So in a sense the player is being trained. Iono. I can totally see the appeal of such games and I'm pretty sure I'm going to have a Wii by the end of the year but I just wished they marketed it to me like "Not the same as real life but a freaking good time."
I think the idea isn't so much that it'll supplant the real life possibilities, but it's supposed to be a gateway to nongamers.
ReplyDeleteThink about it this way - back in the day, the Atari controller had like... a joystick and a button. That's it, and it was very popular among a variety of age groups. But as gaming has evolved, so too has the controller, and the modern controller speaks volumes about who the market is catering to. A PS3 controller has 11 buttons, not including two analog sticks and a directional pad, and new games usually make use of nearly all of that real estate. To a nongamer, that is not only daunting, but alien. "Push the circle triangle button" doesn't mean anything to them.
This is exactly why the Wii was A. Scorned by a lot of "hardcore" gamers as a kid's toy, and B. Gobbled up by the mainstream. It reintroduced accessibility to the general populace. Whereas previous games were impenetrable in terms of both theme and interaction, Wii gave people concepts and methods of interaction with which they were familiar (bowling!). The idea was never to supplant the real life sport or running around outside, but to draw in a new demographic (which is not much nobler, but perhaps less sinister) and to try and gather momentum with people who are opposed to gaming on the grounds of the sedentary lifestyle it promotes (read: parents).
I agree that running in place is not the same as running, waving your hands around is not the same as bowling, and petting an invisible animal is a far cry from owning a real dog or cat. Yes, it's a little dishonest to market how incredibly similar your Kinect/Move/Wii experience is to the genuine article - but the point is that it's WAY closer than it was when you were confined to a controller, with far fewer barriers, and is a tip-toe closer to the "world of the future" people were promised in Star Trek, etc.
Yes, there are still some pretty gross limitations with what you can do, and your freedom is heavily constricted by the confines of that particular game world. That said, these games allow you to fence, box, skateboard, fly, white-water raft, etc at a fraction of the cost, in terms of material, time, and health. You can also fight dragons or go to space or a billion other crazy things - they just happen to be marketing the things that resonate most with their target demographic.
Anywhooooo, I think there is some weight to your concerns, but I also think you might be lending the implications of this kind of gaming more gravity than they are due. Or I could just flat out be misunderstanding your argument ;D
i know what you mean, but i do think youre misunderstanding my argument. i think. you were the closest when you said that i might be giving them more gravity then they deserve. i guess i dont know how to explain what i mean. I was trying to express how the use of the word "control" is tricky because my natural behavior is modified to go along with the game, so the game is controlling me in that sense. like "busting a move" or throwing kibble® at the screen isn't likely to get me optimum points according to the remit of the game. so those constraints aren't "control" at all. iono. it really doesn't matter. buy a game and enjoy it. and if youre skeptical like me, iono buy a dog and take him bowling. 'cause nothing beats real life!
ReplyDeleteNow I just want to bowl with dogs :(
ReplyDelete