Project Cognizance

The Ontological Problem with ‘Casual’

admin — Tue, 07 May 2013 03:51:20 +0000

This will be short; I don’t have much to say, if only because of the elusiveness of the topic. Originally this was going to be an article on the nature of the casual gamer, and more specifically, the term associated with the ‘casual gamer’. But the more I began to consider and think about what was or wasn’t a casual gamer, or casual games, that I began with more questions than answers.

First, what are casual gamers, and more importantly, what’s the metric for defining a casual gamer? Implicit through much of the articles I came across inferred casual gamers as a dichotomous model, but can a casual gamer be more casual than another? We can certainly argue that hardcore gamers can see themselves as degrees or gradations of ‘hardcore’ relative to other gamers, but what about casual gamers?

This may be a patter of common sense, but when you have people and organizations in the industry (Jim Sterling or the Casual Games Association, for instance) refer to casual games and casual gamers as a large group, you’re implying a dichotomous model; players are either casual or they’re not.

That sounds atrociously antiquated and far too simplistic. Defining someone as being in a state of being versus not suggests that you can have internal consistency.

Second, where does the term casual begin? Even if the term ‘casual gamer’ emerges overnight as a polychotomous term, how do we determine the bare minimum labels? Is it someone who plays ‘casual games’ more so than ‘hardcore’ games? Or is it someone who only plays infrequently? If I choose to play a game such as Battlefield or Assassin’s Creed, for example, and only those games, does that make me a casual, regular, or hardcore gamer? How do I identity myself, and how do others identify me?

This is even more troublesome when we have to consider that an industry has emerged – a lucrative industry – around a vague, abstract conception of the casual games industry. Even more disconcerting is that our idea of time as an independent variable may not be the most honest or reflective variable in this sort of study.

If someone plays Minesweeper for several hours a day, but another plays Starcraft 2 for only 2-3, who is the casual gamer? Some people may say both, since one is restricted by time, whereas the other is restricted by complexity.

However, these labels are relative, and if pitted against each other, who is the more dedicated gamer? Does complexity or time determine how much or how ‘hardcore’ or how ‘casual’ a gamer can be?

Is it investment? Does the man trawling several discussion forums for the latest tips and news make him a more hardcore gamer than the man who does not? Does thereby time in investment of production and news make him a more hardcore gamer? This insinuates that people with full-time jobs can never be more ‘hardcore’ and thus relegated to the casual label by default due to time. Additionally, this also implies that non-gaming priorities are deteriorations of gaming hardcore-ness, turning people into more casual husks of their former gaming selves.

Third, how should we treat other casual gamers? This is a question that rarely comes up in the industry, but anyone that studies Social Identity Theory knows that this question is central. Just as how we may have gradations of the casual gamer, we must also account the likelihood – nay, the reality – of casual gamers with relative conceptions of casual between themselves. Could some casual gamers not consider themselves more hardcore than other casual gamers, and thus they are no longer casual gamers because of that relationship?

This sounds like an absurd question, but this is very important because this problem insinuates something very important for the casual-hardcore debate: this is ultimately one about group-ego and power, buried and blanketed by abstraction. People can take pride in casual gaming, being casual gamers, just as how people can take pride in hardcore gaming and being hardcore gamers, but at the end of the day, so what?

If one group is more or less casual than another group, then does that mean the other group is more or less hardcore? If that is the case, then can we assign and absolute value for casual versus hardcore in the first place? If not, then what purpose does such a debate serve other than to reinforce insider-outsider relationships?

If someone cannot be hardcore simply because they are more invested through some arbitrary metric than another group, then should the casual-hardcore dialogue even exist in the first place? Does such as debate serve any sort of research purpose?

These aren’t answers, I know. None of these are answers. But they’re questions that emerged during my research as I sought to understand whether an absolute value could exist. But ludology, narratology, and gaming studies has yet to construct sufficient epistemological tools for understanding casual and hardcore relationships. Instead, gamers use them for their own purposes.

On one end, we can argue that such usage is innocuous; calling someone a casual is simply another way to establish insider or outsider status relative to another person, and it’s a handy enough abstraction that nobody bats an eyelash. But on the other hand, you have an organization such as the CGA, categories such as ‘Casual Games’ or companies that argue they specialize in ‘Casual Games’, without any consistency in the methodology of their findings. You have a field where study can become invalid because there is no consistent understanding of what some of the most basic, crucial terms of some of the largest and most industry influential groups mean.

But what can we do about? What can analysts, industry professionals, and gamers do about it? Perhaps we can’t find a clear definition, and instead we’re doomed to languish in vagueness. At the very least, I believe, we can start by defining our priorities, by defining what makes people a casual gamer. From there, we can establish minimums, and from there we can understand group relations, both within and outside our own self-defined labels.

Then, we talk.

A First Impression of the PS4

admin — Tue, 07 May 2013 03:48:09 +0000

Considering the PS4 has only been recently announced and that it isn’t planned for release until the end of the year one would think it’s too early to be making on opinion on the console. However, with the WiiU released, thus marking 2013 as the 8th generation of consoles, I personally feel that the announcement of a new one as good time for speculation and introspection.

Sony Computer Entertainment president and CEO Andrew House presented the new system at Hammerstein Ballroom at Manhattan Center Studios in New York, saying it was the “most powerful platform ever” and “would allow worlds to come alive with greater fidelity and intensity than ever before”. With its 8GB of unified memory, and 18 compute units that generate 1.84 teraflops of processing power that can be applied either to graphics, simulation tasks or both, I can certainly see the idealism and truth to that statement, but from my personal experience powerful hardware never seemed to mean much.

Going back over older consoles I never really noticed the lack of hardware power even when compared to today’s consoles, because the designers used technique to make up for the lack of technology. For an obvious example, look at Mario, he was designed specifically to look as human as possible with the limited colors and pixels of the time he was made; he wore overalls so that his suspenders would serve as borders letting a viewer realistically imagine where his torso ended and his arms began, and that’s just one example of his design. Sure, powerful hardware is impressive and necessary, but I’m more interested in what designers and developers will do with it rather than how much there is. While an artist can make better works with better a canvas and tools, it’s still the artist own ability that truly makes his work great.

One of the hallmarks of the PS4 is it’s “suspend mode”, which keeps the console in a low power state for preserving playing sessions, and a player can begin playing a downloadable title once a fraction of it has been downloaded, finishing the process in the background while the game is in mid-play. Interesting additions if you ask me, but rather minor and not too difficult to pull off. Any console would get the same effect with the simple addition of a Sleep mode function, like most handhelds and laptops already have. Although getting to play a game in the process of its download is certainly a plus, it’s not an absolutely necessary function, and I feel like it wouldn’t make much of an impact on the presentation if it didn’t have it.

The dual shock 4 controllers will feature a touchpad, reduced latency, and enhanced rumble, as well as a share button that will let a player take screenshots or record their gameplay footage and send it to their friends. As a let’s player on YouTube, I think this is a neat feature, as a large part of being a let’s player is sharing the gaming and gameplay experience with the viewers, and allowing everyone to do it with each other is a very good call on Sony’s part at least in my opinion. Think about it; you and your good friend from across town both have PS4s and you get that new game you were both itching to get your hands on? Well, now you can send him footage of you playing it so the two of you don’t have to make arrangements for one to visit the other to show it off to them. Another feature to point out was that controller was designed in conjunction with the PlayStation Eye 4, which interacts with the controller via a light bar on the pad, and can sense the depth of the environment and track the position of the controller. It will also have two cameras which will allow for different modes of operation, depending on the target application, the two cameras can be used together for depth-sensing of objects in its field of vision.

Alternatively, one of the cameras can be used for generating the video image, with the other used for motion tracking. While one may be inclined to point out that this is just Sony copying both the Kinect and the WiiU, I personally don’t see a problem with using or even refining the innovations of others, and if they are just copying, at least it seems they went into it with some forethought and integrity, as this kind of setup could allow for some interesting control and gameplay innovation.

Finally, we come to the games. What was announced were a new Killzone and Infamous and a port of Diablo 3, three series I have never had much invested interest in, but I’m certain their fan bases will enjoy them and that the creators won’t let them down. Jonathan Blow, the creator of the indie title Braid, announced an open world puzzle game titled The Witness as a timed PS4 exclusive, considering its genre and creator, I think it will be an interesting title for the new generation. Evolution Studios, who develop Motorstorm, unveiled Drive Club which is a racer focused on team-based online racing, while I’m not particularly a fan of racers, what does interest me about this title is that it will link to a app for smartphones and tablets so players can stay caught up on their driving teams, something I think could be also be used for other types of console based online games; off the top of my head, it would be neat for a guild based random generation dungeon RPG. Yoshinori Ono, producer of Street Fighter, was there to demo their new engine, called Panta Rhei, for a title for the new system which is currently under the working title Deep Down, which appears to be a European Medieval RPG type game, which is hinted in its trailer to have a co-op element.

Shinji Hashimoto, the brand director of Final Fantasy said that Square Enix is working on the next installment for the series for the PS4, which is to be expected of them ever since the 7th game. Halo creators Bungie unveiled a new sci-fi shooter called Destiny which will also be released for the PS3 in addition to other consoles, but there will be exclusive content for the PS4 version. Ubisoft showed off Watch Dogs, a sandbox game where the player can profile NPCs to learn their secrets and take control of various technologies throughout the in-game city, which is of personal intrigue to me, as I felt giving the player a more unique thematic scenario or special power was something the sandbox genre was missing. And last but not least, Sony Japan is developing Knack, an action platformer game about a little robot of the same name who can change his form. As I was born in 1994, I spent most of my childhood playing games of the “mascot platformer” variety: Sonic, Mario, Kirby, and Donkey Kong of course, but also Gex, Crash, Spyro, Jak and Rachet, so I know Knack is right up my alley, and I’m excited for it as we’ve haven’t had a classic style 3D platforming game since maybe American McGee’s Alice and it’s sequel.

All in all, my feelings are mixed, there are certainly some interesting additions and games, but this is not a step forward for Sony. What the new system offers is only an improved version of the PS3, with better graphics and some new features that are purely cosmetic if anything. And I must say, the lack of backwards compatibility is a huge concern to me, the first two PlayStations brought more people into gaming and have an impressive library of games that a huge majority of people won’t be able to play, sure you can download the titles online, but you shouldn’t have too.

Maybe Sony will pull out the rug from under us with something amazing once the system comes out, or even a developer will release a killer IP that will define this generation, but as of right now, I think it’s best if we keep a wait and see mindset.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/392432/playstation-4-is-official-sonys-most-powerful-platform-ever-launching-holiday-2013/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gaming/consoles/ps4-release-date-news-and-features-937822

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/technology/sony-unveils-playstation-4-aiming-for-return-to-glory.html?_r=0

IRC Debate: Is Gaming Culture Misogynistic?

admin — Tue, 07 May 2013 03:43:19 +0000

So, to recall the stuff before the actual debate.

Both sides will give their pitch.

when you are finished, please tell us that you are finished.

After that, I will ask two questions to both members.

After that, anyone can ask a question to either member.

Alright. Is there a time limit on the pitch/

Nope.

since I expect to do most of my legwork in the responses, my pitch will be very short

I’ve got a bit of ground to cover, but I’ll make my pitch as succinct as possible.

should we agree on a definition of misogyny before the debate, or let that be part of it?

I’ll let it be part of it.

Based upon a coin flip, Drew will be going first.

So remember, the question ‘Is gaming culture misogynistic?’

And Drew will begin the pitch.

Gaming culture is certainly characterized by chronic sexism, but I to say it’s misogynistic is problematic for two central reasons. First, the label of “misogyny” – which is typically understood as meaning the hatred of women – is at best an oversimplification. It seems more accurate to label most behaviours as insensitive, sexist, and prejudiced – gamers have views about gender roles, and they have biases toward women, but I

don’t think it would be fair to label dominant attitudes as hatred. Second, it also seems unfair to apply a label like misogynist to an entire culture, since there are a huge variety of people and views encompassed by a label like “gamer.” There isn’t anything inherently misogynistic about gaming culture, so even if misogyny is strongly represented among gamers, it’s hardly accurate to characterize the entire culture that way.

Alright, Travis will now present his pitch.

Gaming culture, in its present state, fosters misogyny in specific, powerful cultural centers. One of the most prominent of these cultural centers is competitive online gaming. These are the social circles that form around games such as Halo, Call of Duty, Battlefield, League of Legends, Counter-Strike, etc. While it would be absurd to label gaming culture as a whole misogynistic, these specific social circles are extremely powerful in their presence and inform people, both insiders and outsiders of the gaming community, about the stereotypical “gamer.” The stereotype is well known. These are the gamers that use derogatory language in an attempt to harm their competition, whether it be against one’s gender, sex, sexuality, age, religion, race, what have you. The anonymity of these combative environments allow a space which is perceived as a “men only” area to exist as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is remarkable difficult to punish those who exhibit this behavior, and thus this behavior continues unchecked. While this is true of any anonymous space (e.g. 4chan), there is a particular favoring of men as protagonists and essential characters in games that helps to foster misogynistic feelings. Both men and women are given stock characters that are essentially sex symbols that simply exist for the betterment of the player-character. They are essentially “eye candy,” usually marketed toward men. Furthermore, game developers continually been warned to not feature a female protagonist for their game. It is this last element, the underrepresentation of female characters, that is the inherently misogynistic element of gaming culture.

Alright, I will present two questions to Drew, and two questions to Travis.

As per coin flip, Drew will be the first one.

One, one could argue that misogyny is a sentiment encapsulated the behaviour of gamers towards other gamers, especially women. Is strictly defining hatred versus treatment that important to understanding misogyny?

Second, what change would this distinction have on how we should approach gamer treatment, and if that makes a difference at all?

The first question is predominantly semantic – defining misogyny as an attitude is important because that’s what the word tends to mean (though some would argue for expanding the definition to all prejudice, it seems to be getting too far from the roots of the word).

The second answer is, therefore, also pretty semantic. If we use the word misogyny differently, we can use it with respect to all sorts of prejudicial behaviours and attitudes. I’m not sure what the discursive utility of that would be.

Alright, for Travis, I will pose two questions.

One, could you not argue that competitive behaviour is because of male predominance in attendance?

Two, what about games that do not have an interaction between players, such as single player RPGs?

One: The question’s answer unfortunately relies on information I believe nobody has. One would have to argue that men inherently drive competition where women do not. I do not personally believe this, and I know several female gamers who are by far more competitive than myself. However, I do believe competitive games are overwhelmingly marketed toward men. To date, Call of Duty and Battlefield do not allow for female infantry (even in futuristic settings). Very recently Kotaku did an article on how female marines were a last-minute consideration in the latest Alien game, where females in the original film played an extensive, and even vital role. The film broadcast a message that women are just as capable as men, yet the game hesitated to the last minute to include women at all. This exclusion of female presence in games is naturally going to help foster a male-dominated space, as women have no option but to play as men in many AAA competitive games. Two: Misogyny in single player games comes from a multitude of sources, but primarily from a lack of female representation. Geoffrey Zatkin of EEDAR, an influential prediction force for investors in video games, stated that of their data on 669 action, shooter, and RPG games in the last seven years, less than 300 had a female lead option, and only 24 have a sole female lead. Even more important, their data showed that games which even offered a female playable character at all typically lost 25% of potential income. This alone is enough to make producers tell game developers to change the gender of the lead character. Even the language we use to describe characters suggests a “men-first” attitude. In Mass Effect, many players know the female version of Shepard as “Fem-Shep.” This assumes that “Man-Shep” or “Male-Shep” is the normal, and to choose otherwise is not normal. Because of this, women are forced to play through a male’s perspective in games and reinforces the idea that video games is a for-men form of entertainment. One commenter even stated that he had an extremely hard time immersing himself into a game when he plays as a female, and that he assumed that since men mostly play games anyway, that protagonists should be male. In fact, 47% of current-day gamers are female, hence underrepresentation.

Alright, this leaves the floor open up to others.

Anyone in the room is eligible to ask a question of any of the debaters.

It seems no one has questions?

If nobody has any comments, this chat will close in 5 minutes.

Not a question, but a comment: I think Travis makes great points, but I hesitate to accept the argument that underrepresentation of female characters in games causes trends in gaming culture. I’m inclined to think they’re more of a reflection of existing culture – which again, might better be described as sexist than misogynistic.

Would Travis like to respond?

Yes, one moment.

To respond to Drew: I feel we’re both partially right on that front. Culture and trends influence one another. Game developers are hesitant to feature characters because they say they won’t profit. They won’t profit because gamers are used to the status quo. It’s most likely a self-fulfilling prophecy. But beside that, larger culture, I argue, is still very sexist, but I feel that’s a component of misogyny. To borrow from Penny Arcade, gamers online are susceptible to what he calls the “Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory” (pardon the language, but it’s well known). This basic formula states that a regular person plus anonymity plus an audience yields someone who will be more cruel and vicious than they would be in person (i.e. a “fuckwad”). I think this makes up a large part of the misogyny present in gaming culture, and is seen in other places such as 4chan and other anonymous spaces. People will attack using the path of least resistance, and attacking women based on their gender has proven to be effective, and so it repeats. But I do feel that the very lack of female representation in games contributes to women feeling othered. When men can say that they don’t feel comfortable playing as women, yet completely ignore that women often do not have female avatars of their own, that is inherently a sexist act, which I believe is a component of misogyny.

Alright, that concludes the debate. Would either like to provide any closing remarks?

Nope. I think the GIFT is an excellent note to end on.

Travis?

That should be good!

Very well

That summarizes today’s debate. Thank you Drew and Travis.

Thank you Joe, and excellent job, Drew.

thanks to both of you…looking forward to the comments on N4G

Do we really need to reconfigure the Sixaxis?

admin — Tue, 07 May 2013 03:40:26 +0000

Images have been leaked on The Escapist and Reddit of an alleged prototype with what seems to be a touchscreen. I’m a bit uncertain.

Though I prefer a floating d-pad, the SIXAXIS is nevertheless a strong feat of design; it’s simple, unassuming, and weighs enough to feel like a solid piece of equipment yet not enough to feel bulky. For all intents and purposes, it’s a damned good piece of hardware. Though it’s quality is less than stellar, from a design perspective I have difficulty laying criticism against the SIXAXIS.

Therefore I find myself hoping that we can keep the SIXAXIS, or at the very least, allow some sort of backwards compatibility. I wish this is the case.

I’ll argue we’ve reached a pretty good ‘end of history’ in terms of the contemporary gaming controller – those things that fit into your hand acting as iconic slabs of plastic plastered all over gaming websites (including this one) - and that we’re moving into a market of micro-tablets more than controllers. Those disagreeing will definitely argue that we still retain the fundamentals of these controls, and probably for a very long time (such as d-pads, joysticks, etc.), and that alternatives will still exist (ie., anything made by MadCatz or a plethora of third-party industries), but can we have a limit on touchscreen integration?

Perhaps it’s nostalgia, something I’m (hypocritically) critical of, but changing the controller at this stage seems to be closing a chapter on gaming history. Perhaps this can be argued that gaming controllers aren’t that big of a deal, and that touch screens are to non touch screens as wireless are to wired, but I don’t see such a linear connection between the two.

Or perhaps my comments are moot, and Sony will create a system with backwards compatibility, and I’ll be left in the dust being wrong with fingers pointed at me in leering mockery. But do we really, really, truly, need touch screens on our controllers? I can understand Nintendo, if only because they’ve ‘pidgeonholed’ themselves into being the new gadgeteers of the triumvirate of big gaming consoles, but does anyone else need to match that by adding more (currently) unnecessary tech?

Better yet, can gaming companies adapt to this new technology really that easily or quickly? I’m probably being alarmist, but none of this seems necessary.

Hello world!

admin — Tue, 07 May 2013 01:15:29 +0000

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!