- example quotation here... (copy the entire passage here and note the page number).
- example question/comment here... (short question and comment)
[click "edit" at top of this page when logged in to add you Q&Q. Just copy this "Name" section and paste below, and replace this placeholder content with your own!]
With the ever increasing prices of video games, I find it harder and harder to truly enjoy them. Pay to plays, pay to wins, games where you purchase the main story and have to then buy related DLCs to ACTUALLY reach the end of the game (such as Dragon Age Inquisition and it's final DLC, Trespasser), are slowly closing the gap of game players. While it's important to pay the creators and artists of these games, is this path of constant payments taking the fun out of play?
Paolo Pedercini takes a pretty critical tone in his video in regards to computer games, gamification, and their "rationalization of our lives," as he puts it. While it may be true that virtual games, specifically those involving management of resources (Farmville types, etc), can be boiled down to ticking off boxes on a checklist of tasks to complete, this is still considered play (surplus resource theory?). His point of view seems to be that task management games are boring and not a worthy way to spend playing time. There are players who find completing tasks on lists an enjoyable form of play. There might be an unintended usefulness in them as a self help or coping mechanism for anxiety etc. (As it was stated last week, games exist to exist and are beautiful because they are games.)
- What makes a game "good" or "bad" if it fulfills the requirements of being a game? How do you judge a game's usefulness or measure its "worthwhile-ness" ?
Games are being disputed now like early cinema ---> "contemporary critics dismiss games—they were suspicious of cinema’s commercial motivations and technological origins, concerned about Hollywood’s appeals to violence and eroticism, and insistent that cinema had not yet produced works of lasting value. Seldes, on the other hand, argued that cinema’s popularity demanded that we re-assess its aesthetic qualities." (pg.4). Like in early cinema when it fought to be recognized as art, games that focused on aesthetics propelled the field into the future. Like any other art form game designers work within a medium that's still trying to figure out what it's exactly trying to do or be.
Also the idea of games influencing cinema and other mediums was mentioned. It reminded me that Seattle Shakespeare did a performance of Titus Andronicus where the idea of video games were employed to further the plot - not sure how it worked but it happened.