In the ilecture Woods stated when speaking about the history of games “TV killed gaming innovation because the companies that produced games … started remaking them with a new image on the box… this hasn’t really changed much” (Woods 2011). While this is true of board games (a quick Google search will find loads of different versions of monopoly including “make your own Opoly” where you can customize the board game to suit your own interests) I am not sure that it applies to video games in the same way.
While the reason for buying the Star Wars version of Monopoly, hopefully is because you are a fan of Star wars – playing the game of monopoly is not something overly representative of the movies themes or storyline. Video games on the other offer a greater flexibility in representing the initial text - be it in graphics, storyline or characters voice and appearance. In fact the media companies that creates the movie also create the game ensuring a harmonious branding across all platforms. For example Sony – a company that makes televisions and electronic equipment is actually a group of companies. One branch of the group is Sony Pictures who make movies and television shows. Another branch of the Sony group make the Sony PlayStation and PlayStation games (Sony Global - Sony Global Headquarters 2011). Therefore when Sony pictures make a blockbuster movie with a lot of graphics and special effects, a game can also be produced at the same time using the same graphic styles and is instantly recognizable to consumers.
Games are popular and in an article about the future of video games Mawer suggests a few reasons why this is the case. His first reason once again, is in the production value – he states that games have “story lines that are gripping, full of suspense, action and adventure which are supported by some stunning visuals, amazing sound effects and a stirring soundtrack to accompany the hero” (Mawer 2011) and his second reason in purely financial “but the movie is over within a few hours while the video game plays for a whopping 50 hours” (Mawer 2011). So the games have all the story line and production value of a movie, but offer better entertainment value by allowing the consumers to extend the time they spend interacting with their favorite media texts.
Professor Thomas De Zengotita’s theories on the effects of media evolution could give further insight into the popularity of games. In an interview about fame and celebrity he speaks about something he calls an act of “fundamental robbery” that has been created by a fame driven media system. The fundamental human need is acknowledgment and he believes that our media society takes this away from the average person stating “the evolution of media of all kinds, in large scale societies (should be seen) as taking the fame or acknowledgement that used to be everybody’s and some how reassigning it to only a few people” (Genier 2011) . With this in mind video games could be seen as way of placating this need to be acknowledged as in the game the player becomes the central focus, their existence within the game is acknowledged and their actions instantly rewarded.
This could explain why adult gamers feel they need to rationalize their game playing to others. Research conducted by Helen Thornham discovered that while many adults play games, many still feel there is a social stigma attached to it and therefore tend to rationalize their game playing as a logical pastime – such as socializing. Those who admitted to playing games regularly and by themselves were often ridiculed, seen as geeky, and their sexual orientation questioned. Thornham put this reaction down to a cultural issue in the structured adult life that mimics “working lives where every hour has meaning or purpose” (Thornham 2009). Gaming offers a form of escape from the everyday that is seen purely as entertainment, it is therefore unproductive (in the work life sense) resulting in gamers defending their actions through rationalizations.
Finally Jenkins offers further insight into the role of gaming in society. He notes the roles that moral panics have played in the multiple stigmas attached to video gaming – such as violent games producing violent people. He counters this argument by advising that gamers have the ability to distinguish the real from the virtual stating that people “tend to dismiss anything they encounter in fantasy or entertainment that is not consistent with what they believe to be true about the real world”(Jenkins 2006). Unlike Thornton who sees games purely as escapist and fun, Jenkins sees games as a meaningful way to spend time. He sees games as a place for learning about society, a way for people to escape and blow off steam, a way to generate new thought and a way of improving social ties and bonds. All meaningful if not conducive to the production of a commercial goods.
Teenage Paparazzo. 2011. SBS FIlm, http://www.sbs.com.au/films/movie/10426/Teenage-Paparazzo (accessed 23/10/11).
Jenkins, H. 2006. The War Between Effects and Meaning: Rethinking the Video Game Violence Debate. In Digital generations, ed D. Buckingham. Massachusetts. http://edocs.library.curtin.edu.au/eres_display.cgi?url=dc60263484.pdf (accessed 19/10/11).
Mawer, K. 2011. Video games - the media of the future. http://www.deltapublishing.co.uk/uncategorized/video-games-the-media-of-the-future (accessed 25/10/11).
Sony Global - Sony Global Headquarters. 2011. http://www.sony.net/ (accessed 25/10/11).
Thornham, H. 2009. Claiming a Stake in the Videogame : What Grown-Ups Say to Rationalize and Normalize Gaming. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies: 445-462. http://con.sagepub.com/content/15/2/141 (accessed 19/10/11).
Woods, S. 2011. Play with Me. In MCCA104-Engaging Media. Perth. Curtin University of Technology.
No comments:
Post a Comment