Videogames and Art, pt. 2

I found an in this last week of readings which seem to address two questions I find interesting, though I'm sure my colleagues have discussed in greater depth.

The first chapter is "The Computer as a Dollhouse," which makes the claim that videogames serve as simply an extension of the games children play during their early years. It makes sense, given that a lot of the metaphors designers use in producing their avatars include many references to dolls and doll houses, such as "rag doll" physics. Additionally, the players play through scenarios, vicariously enjoying the experiences their avatars find themselves in, in much the same way boys and girls play Cowboys and Indians or House. The player is given a chance to experience something different, much like little girls play with their toy babies. No real earth-shattering statements here.

My questions are, in this brief statement:
1) In much the same way we addressed Homo lupens, is videogame play merely an extension of a fantasy realm?
2) Why does it matter that players are allowed to create a fully customizeable avatar in their game of choice? Is this a representation of themselves?

Videogames and Art, pt. 1

I've enjoyed reading this book, so far. There are plenty of important and interesting concepts on whether or not videogames themselves are art. This, however, does not interest me. What interests me most, especially with regards to the art of videogames, is the art that the player makes using the game as his medium, as a sculptor shapes clay. My primary research interest at this time is in machinima, which recieves a little attention in this book but very little anywhere else.

Lowood's chapter on the history of machinima, as well as Cannon's chapter "Meltdown," both address the act of creating machinima. Lowood explains how machinima came into being, and how the availability of tools, such as Quake's dynamic floating camera, made machinima possible. These procedural choices (rhetorical choices, really) allow gamers the technical freedom to remediate the game technology into their own designs. Cannon suggests that the films that arise from machinima projects fit into the communicative niche of "narrative" or "temporal wallpaper." I think that this is a bit short-sighted, especially given the variety of commercially and independently produced machinima which address a number of topics for a variety of reasons. I would argue that Cannon's genres of machinima are much too general, while a different, more specific classification system would work better to help legitimize the machinima production itself. Perhaps its merely a matter of semantics, but by addressing the many uses of machinima, narrative and abstract, this artistic style would draw more attention from the academic public at large. For example, I delineate three basic genres of "narrative" machinima: industrial-produced instructional videos, commercial entertainment, and user-generated entertainment. Of course there are many other genres out there one could delineate, but these are the three that interest me most and are mentioned most thoroughly in my research.

Questions:
1) Is there a distinction between creating artistic videogame mods and creating machinima? What is that distinction?

Purposes of Persuasion

In concluding this book, Bogost attempts to draw a final conclusion between the games he's examined and his proposal that the procedures therein either successfully or unsuccessfully persuade the audiences. However, it would seem that the best forms of procedural rhetorics are the ones that act almost subliminally to incite action. Animal Crossing, for example, does not insist that family members play in the same game world, but builds in rewards for doing so. Similarly, WoW has a sub-surface reward system that privileges gamers who play with others, take time away from the game, and work within the system to do things that are not simply grinding mobs.

This second example, WoW's use of procedural rhetorics to encourage responsible and communal gameplay, is the thesis of the seminar paper for this course. I've been working and thinking on it for weeks at this point, and finally feel as though I'm in a position to begin writing.

I've also been preparing questions for Ian Bogost's appearence (if virtually) in class this evening. My biggest questions for him are:

1) To what extent do you think a game's capacity for user generated content, such as machinima or user created maps, exhibit or inhibit the procedurality of the designer's original intent?

2) You've commented on ethics models in RPGs as effective models of how games can teach ethical decisions. Do you think this is more akin to hero quests of classical literature? (Probably will skip this question)

3) In your chapter on procedural literacy, you mention that videogames bridge the gap between costructivism and behaviorism. Could you expand on this claim?