Stockman, How to Shoot Web Video that Doesn't Suck
Williams & Tollett, The Non-Designer's Photoshop Book
Adobe InDesign CS5 Classroom in a Book
The Rhetoric and Gaming class is under-development; it will hopefully be a permanent addition to our major. I haven't taught VisRhet in a few years; this time around I built my syllabus around Meredith's version of the course (adding a derive project for some good ole self-indulgent navel-gazing).
Yes I appreciate the irony of not developing a CSS sheet for the VisRhet webpage. It will come, it will come. And, yes, I realize that Pac-Man is disappearing on a few browsers. That one actually bothers me more...
Skeptical of any "democratic" or "liberatory" elements to networks, Galloway and Thacker write:
In this sense, forms of informatic play should be interrogated not as a liberation from the rigid constraints of systems of exchange and production but as the very pillars that prop those systems up. The more video games appear on the surface to emancipate the player, raising his or her status as an active participant in the aesthetic moment, the more they enfold the player into codified and routinized models of behavior. [...]
Just as the school, in Foucault, was merely preschool for the learned behavior necessary for a laboring life of the factory floor, so games from State of Emergency to Dope Wars are training tools for life inside the protocological network, where flexibility, systemic problem solving, quick reflexes, and indeed play itself are as highly valued and commodified as sitting still and hushin up were for the disciplinary societies of modernity. (The Exploit 115)
I'm down with the critique of school--John Taylor Gatto's Against School is one of my favorite essays to teach. And, thanks to Foucault, we know that discursive disciplinary practices produce their own counter-discursive practices.
But here's my question here--and this is authentic--what is wrong with "flexibility, systemic problem solving, quick reflexes, and play"? This is in many ways my one sentence rebuttal to Gallaway and Thacker, whose insights into the underlying hierarchical nature of networks is a lively and interesting read. What are you looking for? Is there any form of social organization that you wouldn't critique? And perhaps their honest answer would be no--that the very purpose of critique is to always push for something better, or to cast attention on the unattended. But I'm with Jim Gee on this one: unlike the silent conformity demanded by "school," video games teach skills and ethics valuable for social life. Perhaps they define flexibility differently than I (they do at one point argue that "we are tired of being flexible" (98).
There's more I'd like to write about this short but interesting book (particularly their sensitive reading and misapplication of Levinas's concept of the Face), but I've got two conference papers to write and a pile of papers to grade.
An outstanding post today over at Penny Arcade dealing with Ubisoft's most recent measure to combat piracy. Essentially, the game requires you to have constant access to the internet--any break in connectivity, and "poof" you lose all your progress. I spend quite a bit of coin on a top of the line Verizon connection, and I can say that my connectivity is in constant flux. I can't imagine a real world scenario where this kind of DRM isn't going to drive someone batshit crazy. As PA's Tycho comments, it will fail fast and hard.
But I really recommend Tycho's post today precisely because it points to the need for cooperation, and not competition, between the two sides (publishers and pirates). Publishers have to recognize, as mxrk indicated a long time ago, that most people are willing to pay for a product so long as it is convenient and the price is reasonable. And pirates have to realize that continually justifying the outright theft of property will undermine any validity to their initial objections (accessibility, owner's rights to transfer and duplicate, time displacement, fair pricing). If things continue to escalate, then, as Tycho writes, "nobody wins."
So, although I really don't have time to write this, I have to react to the recent article in the LA Times warning movie executives to stay away from video games. I found the discussion over at Joystiq. Here's a selection (link to LA Times article, you can get a password here):
Hollywood can’t win at video games. Because 13-year-old boys spend hours zapping asteroids or stealing virtual cars, movies based on video games would seem to be the logical follow-up to the comic- book-to-movie frenzy. Screenwriter Josh Olson, who was rewriting the “Halo” script (Peter Jackson was to direct) before the movie fell apart, says video games “have aimless cycles. You go to A, shoot some monsters, then go to B, then start over and do it again.” Iraq doesn’t sell. Though Hollywood did its high-minded darnedest to enlighten us with Middle East political treatises such as “Lions for Lambs,” “Redacted,” “Rendition,” “In the Valley of Elah” and “The Kingdom,” the masses have spoken and the verdict is: We’ll take “Spider-Man,” thank you.
RULE #1 | Step away from the video games. Transforming this medium’s weak narratives to film hasn’t been as successful as with comic books
Sigh.
First, what does Halo and shooting have to do with Iraq? Bad paragraph, bad paragraph! It will serve as an example for my teaching presentation at Western Illinois next week on logical development.
More to the heart of the matter, video games really don't make good movies. But its because their narratives are different from those of films. They are longer and more subtle [think: Final Fantasy VII or X]. Like books, you cannot always translate the internal monologue and character development to the big screen [think: Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid 2]. They are interactive-much of their catharsis depends on the players implication with their avatar [think: Silent Hill 3, Shadow of the Colossus]. Of course, there's plenty of flat, meaningless games that do follow aimless uninspired story lines with 2 dimensional characters [though I don't think Halo is one of them- try anything put out by Nintendo whose found a way to put out another "but our princess is in another castle" storyline]. And there were plenty of shitty movies before people tried converting every superhero, whether analogue or digital, into a big screen success. There are plenty of books that don't make it to the silver screen, and don't make it into any book clubs, either [I'm talking to you, Susan Warner's Wide, Wide World].
Video games are their own medium. And no, I don't think that they will necessarily translate well into other mediums. Why should they? To offer a different perspective, video games are outselling the movie and the music industry combined. 21st century attention is going in different directions. Soon, I imagine games will increasingly look back to movies and books for inspiration. We'll have to wait and see if these older narratives can lend themselves to making compelling games.
I've spent the last couple of days playing the online mode of Medal of Honor Heroes 2. Nothing special (it really suffers from a lack of player communication--no voice plus grenades equals frustration. But the immersive wii interface makes the game fun. Now imagine if the good people at Nintendo paid more attention to Mr. Lee's newest hack (I posted Lee's motion sensor hack a few months back):
MTV's Multiplayer site is pulblishing a series of interviews this week with women working in professional games. So far I've read the first two--X-Play's Morgan Webb (who at some point in my life went from being the beautiful woman talking about games to the really cool woman talking about games to the really cool person talking about games) and Jane Pinckard aka Game Girl Advance. Both women talk about how being a woman in games presents both "challenges and opportunities" in Pinckard's words. File this one away for the next time a freshman [male] insinuates that "we've solved that gender problem."
I'm starting tag a lot of stuff like the following video lately. I'm real interested in the digital sandbox that video games are becoming. More and more your seeing games inviting prosuming, including advanced, yet accessible, level editors. Game companies are encouraging users to make modifications, and services such as X-Box live are making it easy to exchange stuff online. Now, it seems, we're on the verge of homemade controllers?
The Wiimote is not obsolete. Its still quite cool. But I'm really beginning to wonder if any of these user modifications will go mainstream. I could see a SimCity / Starcraft type of game built around the hand interface (nevermind if you could create a glove for a baseball game or Manhunt 3: Choker's Delight).
Apparently a few people have gotten together and decided that maybe we should be able to do more than simply consume media. Maybe it would be good if we had some kind of freedom to comment on it, mess with it, or decide where and when we want to consume it. Wouldn't that be cool?
I'm not holding my breath, but there's a bill on the floor to roll back the gestapo-like... I mean restrictive... I mean gestapo-like... implications of the DMCA (like the part that forbids the use of any digital production even in scientific research). The bill is officially titled H.R.1201: Digital Media Consumer's Rights Act of 2005 (DMCRA) (the link goes to a discussion over at Public Knowledge). There's word today over at Gamespot that the newly formed Electronic Consumers Association is jumping on board. From Public Knowledge's analysis:
The DMCRA would ensure that legal, non-infringing uses are not prohibited by the DMCA. Furthermore, the DMCRA encourages scientific research into technology protections. It ensures that activities solely for the purpose of research into technology protection measures are permitted. The bill does not weaken the effectiveness of technology controls; rather it ensures that the controls function solely as intended - to stop illegal activity and infringement. Infringers will still face the same penalties, but the DMCRA enables people who have legally obtained access to digital content to exercise legal uses without fear of criminal punishment.
Since this bill has been kicking around since 2005, I don't think this one's coming anytime soon. And since just about every media mogul in the world (with exception of Google) wants to see this thing buried, chances are this thing's getting squashed like the Yankees in the 21st century. But I'm glad somebody is fighting the 21st century corporate movement to eliminate fair use.
The game is a port from the other next-gen system, and while the early descriptions talk about taking advantage of the Wii's controls, its unclear to what extent. Nothing against Zelda, but I'm looking for quality swordplay, not random controller shaking.
Even if there isn't hand to hand live action combat, I'm hoping they might come up with some kind of Okami-like scheme where action temporarily pauses while users "draw" moves, then unpauses and translates the drawing into special swordplay sequences. (The SSX Blur snowboarding game for the Wii does something similar with both hands, and it works pretty well).
But, not to kill the excitement, I don't see this kind of depth happening with a port. Here's what to watch for: timeline. If this game comes out next summer, or even late next spring, then buy me an adult pacifier. Seriously. But, if you see this game this Christmas, then be weary. It could be the difference between Resident Evil 4 and Tiger Woods 2007. And, trust me, that's quite a bit of difference. But, oh God, this could be so bad ass...
Everything moves a bit too fast for me to offer any meaningful reflection on fatherhood. While I don't recognize any substantial changes so far, I'm sure they're there. Favorite thing: any smile. Smiles usually signify gas, but you don't really care why she's smiling. I can't describe what an awesome and inspiring feeling that gives. Least favorite thing: crying. The nurses in the hospital even noted that our baby is, um, loud. Quite loud. And she has no quams about vocalizing her displeasure. Sometimes you can do something about it: (have your wife) feed her, change her diaper, burp her. Other times its just gas, and there's nothing you can do but wait it out. Difficult.
Here's a list of things I would like to write more about but don't have time:
I don't think any other sport has something as magical as a no-hitter. Awesome. Congrats to Buckholtz. I'm already wondering whether Schilling will make the playoff rotation...
And, Jerry, not only was it a curve ball, it was a paralyzing curve ball. Awesome
I can't blame Rodney Harrison for using HGH given his condition (he blew every ligament in his knee last season). If I had an accident, and my brain was broken, and I could take a pill to fix it, except RSA ruled that any rhetorician using this pill would take a one semester ban even though doctors often prescribed this pill to "civilians" with the same condition, then, yeah, I would take the pill. See you in a month, Rodney.
Metriod 3 Prime Corruption is out for Wii, and it is very good. There's quite a few difficult puzzles in the game, and less firefighting than I expected. One complaint: boss battles, though cool, tend to last a bit too long and grow tedious. Other than that, a very cool game that plays well with the Wii's controls. My second favorite game for the system, slightly ahead of Zelda and behind Res4
I recently finished working with a local dog group on a website redesign. Intially, I was particularly proud to recreate what was a table-based layout in xhtml and css. Later, the group decided they wanted to make some significant changes and I taught my wife enough Fireworks and Dreamweaver for her to redesign the color scheme. We worked together and remain married. Go us. But that's not today's victory.
From the beginning of the project the group wanted some kind of photo gallery for the site. The problem: how do I create a standards-compliant site that group members can easily update? My first idea was to use Flash to create a gallery. But this didn't seem like a good option, since images need to be re-sized before they are added to a collection, and every update means going in and editing the flash file. No...no..no. I also thought about using Javascript (I've done this before for Purdue's GradSEA), but this technique isn't standards-compliant.
Reading a Mashable article on image editing resources yesterday, I came across a link to ImageShack--a photo hosting service that allows users to easily create slideshows and pumps out code to embed the shows on other websites (kind of like the libraryThing widget Michael uses on Wishydig, but using Flash rather than Java). The problem? Embeds are banned by the w3c--use the easy widget, lose your validation. All seemed lost. Especially since the classic fix for embed, McLellan's satay method, works best when you can create a container moive. This wasn't the case. Then I remembered (via del.icio.us) Elizabeth Castro's article on how McLellan's technique can be used on Google Video and YouTube movies without the satay...
When you complete a slide show with ImageShack (and you don't have to register to create a slideshow, but you do have to register to be able to edit a show), it will produce this code:
The key to getting this puppy working is to include the unique id as a FlashVars parameter (the final line of the code). Google and Youtube supply each movie with its own URL, ImageShack doesn't--rather, it assigns each slideshow a unique id in its database. So, bottom line, you have to include this id to get the show rolling. The only line I am unsure of is the "allowScriptAcess" line--it was in Castor's code, but I'm not sure if its necessary. I tried removing it and the slideshow still played in Safari, but I'm not sure if it is an IE command (with the satay method, IE doesn't like auto-starting... if anyone has IE, let me know if this is working, I promise not to chastise you too much for using IE).
Victory is mine! And, best of all, ImageShack is an awesome 2.0 app--it automatically resizes images, allows for easy captions, allows users to re-order images, determine background color, tag presentations, import images from Flickr or other URL's (as well as direct upload), choose transition effects, add music (please don't), and make shows public or private. And now, thanks to A List Apart and some wranglin', it can be standards-compliant. Cool.
UPDATE: I am dumb. Problem solved. Already sent "I'm an idiot" email to ImageShack (see my comment... before I delete it). Now I have to write this post up into something a bit more constructive and submit it to imageshack's tutorial contest...
UPDATE:
Apparently the video is only working in Safari. I'm going to play with it this evening. If any visitors are looking at this post, can you tell me 1) what browser you are using [IE 6, Firefox 1.5 etc.] and 2) whether you see two movies above. Thanks.
UPDATE: O.k., its working in Firefox 2.0.0.1. But IE is being terribly tiresome. Back to the drawing board later?
Feels like forever since I put up a quality post, hope to change that today. I've been copyediting a forthcoming book on new media and its impact on traditional conceptions of mind and body. Essentially, the author convincingly argues that new media continue / engender the deconstructive project: that mind and body can no longer be "split," that consciousness can no longer be considered as stable or unified. He seeks to show that our media have always intended to cover up this lack of unity (even going as far back as spoken language, a move that decontextualizes meaning from presence--every move away from presence continues a fragmentation of consciousness). Good book, I'll write more on this later.
In discussing new media, the author brings up Lee Manovich's exceptions to describing new media as "interactive." The argument: media have always been interactive, since all literature requires the participation of human cognition.
I feel this is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in academia. Serisously. Especially since our first method for articulating digital text production on the internet (HYPERtext) stresses a-linearity. User participation. Its been a few years since I have written anything in this area, but I still tend to agree with Espen Aarseth: much of new media does stress interactivity (what Aarseth refers to as ergodic textuality), actually relies on it--not just to ascribe, decode, realize meaning, but more importantly to order, arrange, generate, enact plot / narrative.
Not all video games, therefore, are ergodic. But this is a direction that some gaming genres are moving in: I think a great example is the early Silent Hill games, where character choices determine ending. There are certainly even more fluid environments (Fable comes to mind), not to mention dynasty sport games, second life simulation games, and MMO-RPG games. What makes these new (mediated) forms of experience is that people can interact in unpredictable ways to control the direction of the story. Sure there's still FF games, which, despite presenting expansive environments, follow linear plots. But to ignore the depth of interactive experience new media invloves is, well, quite ridiculous to me.
I never mean to insinuate that humans can do without story. Far too much Aristotle and Johnson as an undergrad for that (and I'm a plot junkie to boot). There will always be an exhiliration tied to a great twist--an affective attachment to the unfolding of the unknown. But there is a new exhiliration available to a wide range of people-not an unfolding of the unknown, but the construction of it. An this is an equally affective experience. For instance, I am currently playing MLB: 2007, The Show, trying to make the Red Sox as a third baseman. Recently, I got called up to the majors, only to sit on the bench behind perennial all-star and gold glover Mike Lowell. I even asked Terry Francona (my manager) for a spot start twice--and both times he laughed in my face. That hurt. I really mean, I had a visceral reaction to failure--I felt frustration.
And this frustration feeds into a plot that is dynamically emerging. Now, back in triple A, every time I hit a homerun (10 in 130 at bats) or drive in a clutch RBI (34 ribs in 31 games), I imagine what the Boston media might be asking Francona: when will the kid get a chance? And everytime I stirk out (which, I am ashamed to admit is quite often--I currently have six walks and 31 strikeouts), I imagine Francona and Epstein reminding the media that there 19 year old prospect needs to learn more plate discipline (earlier in the year I had a 21 walk to 23 strikeout ratio in double A, time to relax at the plate). My point, if I have one, is that video games facilitated cathartic / affective responses in "new" ways.
So, I think I can make a strong case for how video games (if we consider them among new media) mandate that interactivity remains a key term in discussions / definitions of new media. Up next: how the internet is fundamentally interactive.
Oh: I saw a trailer for this new game Portal this morning on G4tv. Looks VERY cool. Hope it comes out for Wii. Hope I can finally find a f@cking Wii.
I've been having a really good week: I deposited my prospectus, set a defense date, won a multimedia writing award, gave a conference presentation without reading from a paper or notes, received a summer research grant, and got a job evaluating AP exams in Daytona this June. Not a bad week.
So, to reward myself, I bought a new game. I had just bought Fight Night 3 a few weeks ago, but it kinda stinks. Great graphics, cool interface (you spin the right analog to throw puches--quite cool, actually). But the career mode, well, sucks. Utterly. Completely unrealistic records, no meaningful stat tracking, and none of the depth or sophistication of Madden, NCAA, or MLB the Life. Glad I only paid 20 bucks.
Deep game, you could sink 200 hours into this thing no problem. There's somethig like 10 scenarios, each scenario gives you the option to play as one of 20 clans. So, do the math...
Combat is a bit simplistic, and the battle camera needs some work. But its not too bad, essentially you hit the square button a lot. So far I'm winning about half my battles--the problem I'm running into is I'll find myself (playing as the general) surrounded by about 35 opponents. And if your general dies, then the battle is over. I'm trying to get better at running away
The strategy isn't too deep--but you do have a number of choices (whether to research weapons, recruit armies, forge alliances, etc.)
Have to see if this one holds up for more than two weeks. I almost bought God of War II--but that's my reward for finishing my first dissertation chapter.
Slash.dot's had a running conversation of a recent NYTimes article that included a list of the top ten most important video games of all-time. Their list:
[Henry] Lowood and the four members of his committee -- the game designers Warren Spector and Steve Meretzky; Matteo Bittanti, an academic researcher; and Christopher Grant, a game journalist -- announced their list of the 10 most important video games of all time: Spacewar! (1962), Star Raiders (1979), Zork (1980), Tetris (1985), SimCity (1989), Super Mario Bros. 3 (1990), Civilization I/II (1991), Doom (1993), Warcraft series (beginning 1994) and Sensible World of Soccer (1994)
The list was compiled by collecting entries from experts in the field (and the Slash.dot discussion centers on the fact that there seems to be no clear metric for decisions). Nothing here surprises me--save that I have never heard of the "Sensible World of Soccer." I am surprised that no old school Sierra games made the list (I played significant amount of King's Quest and Space Quest in my formative years--not enough to make the list below, however).
Here's my list, and my metric: these are the games that I have played the most, chronologically, in my life. For whatever reason, they captured my attention and would not let go.
Enduro (Atari 2600, my memory doesn't really stretch back this far-but I remember this game utterly pissing me off. Countless hours were wasted trying to win this fucking race. I'm mad just typing about it)
Castlevania I, II, & III (Nintendo, I was not a huge SMB fan, but this game series was a great addiction)
Madden Football 1990 (Genesis, and you can add every other Madden to this list)
Wing Commander Privateer (Computer, very cool game--kind of pre-dates GTA in your ability to be a "rogue" rather than a typical hero)
Mortal Kombat I & II (Genesis, a college staple, I finished many a dorm-mate)
Doom I & II (Computer, many hours, late at night, wondering where that noise was coming from)
Tekken II (Playstation)
Final Fantasy VII (Playstation, I've played all the others--X was very good, XII was also quite good, but nothing compares to the "original" Playstation release; Sephinroth is the coolest character ever)
Hot Shot Golf I-IV (Playstation - Playstation 2, seriously, I still play this game, so superior to TW Golf it ain't even funny)
Socom Navy Seals I & II (Playstation 2, apologies to my wife, family, and friends. This game took over my life for an entire year. Go Myth)
Grand Theft Auto, (Playstation 2, here's the deal--a part of me really hates these games. The controls are clunky and non-responsive, the camera work needs serious help, and the plots are downright infantile. Yet I play them.)
Resident Evil IV (Playstation 2, I could put the whole Resident Evil and Silent Hill series, given my familiarity with these games. I certainly played the hell out of all of them. But Res IV deserves special recognition--dumb plot, but outstanding game. Outstanding. Did I mention that its awesome... only one game better, actually:)
God of War (Playstation 2, This is so much the best game ever that I refuse to even hear an argument otherwise. Don't bother, I'm not listening. Na-na-ni-na-na. Fingers in my ears. Am nervous about the sequel--don't know if it can live up. This game has everything--awesome controls, great characters, incredible story, and it is fun. It might be too violent for some, but for me its poetry in pixels)
Well, not the best games of all time, just the ones that have eaten up the most hours of my life. Bases Loaded almost made the list. Last summer I played an entire 30 year career as a starting pitcher in MLB The Show. I'm sure I'm fogetting a few more that will come back to me later...
Slash.dot had up a link to my article on Resident Evil and Silent Hill in the Game Career Guide, an article which I realize is way too jargoned for mass publication. Oh well. This morning someone emailed me to ask a few follow-up questions, I figured I'd post my response. His questions were why we chose video games, whether we thought game makers consciously considered pscyhoanalysis, and whether we feel video game makers would benefit from an exposure to theory.
To address your questions: this is our second article on the subject. The studies began in a Postmodernism and Popular Culture seminar offered by Dino Felluga at Purdue University. While many of our classmates looked at television and film, Sarah and I both enjoyed playing video games and thought that the multi-linearity of video games, the interactivity, was much closer to the core values of postmodernism than other mediums. I think George Landow's Hypertext series is illuminating here, as is Espen Aarseth's Cybertext.
As we started reading, psychoanalysis seemed the logical choice (given its interest in death and the undead as the space between life and death--Zizek's introductory work on Lacan, Looking Awry, is an especially good text for someone who is looking for an introduction to this material) Our first article, "Playing with Ourselves," appeared in the edited collection Digital Gameplay and focused on how video games allow us to experiment and experience the internal struggles of our ego (torn between a desire to return to the quiet before birth and the enjoyment of life).
As we played the games more, we became interested in the concept of save points... and then Silent Hill 4 came out and blew our minds. Completely. Your room, nicknamed "mother" both heals and hurts you? Lions, tigers, and psychology , oh my.
So much for why gmes. As to if developers use theories directly: perhaps. I know that's a lame answer but... many game developers have a background in film theory, and film theory is heavily steeped in psychoanalysis. But I don't necessarily think that the developers are sitting down and intentionally attempting to create a game that represents Lacanian theory. These theories might be on the horizon of their minds, and influence what they do, but that influence might not necessarily be conscious.
I do think a knowledge of theory and psychology can add to the horror of games--I think one of the reasons that Silent Hill is so horrifying is that we never have a stable grasp of what kind of world we are in--the technical term here would be a questionable diegesis. TV shows like X-Files (before we knew for certain there were aliens) and Lost excel at this tactic. In Resident Evil, we know that the "evil" resides in a multinational corporation researching bio-weapons. Stop the corporation, stop the evil save ourselves. Order assured. Not so easy in Silent Hill, how do you stop what may or may not exist outside of your own mind? How do you control "evil" if you can't control yourself? Derrida in Archive Fever: "Order is no longer assured."
There is a moment at the end of Silent Hill 3 that epitomizes everything we have written about these games. Vincent, a shady character, asks our protagonist if she enjoys the killing she does. I forget Heather's exact response, but she comments something like why would she enjoy killing monsters. Vincent's response: "they look like monsters to you?" That did it for Sarah and I--that's when we knew we were onto something. What if we weren't really killing monsters--what if they only looked like monsters to us--what if our character isn't a hero, but a psychotic killer who has just murdered 30 people on a serial spree?
Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis deal with what lies at the end of consciousness, underneath consciousness, and beyond consciousness. That stuff is always scary.
