The Greatest thing i?ve ever done.
My very 1st experience of a computer game was at the Russians, say hello Russian
(Note: I'm not actually friends with Dolph Lungdren, but my friend is Russian like)
"Hellozki, I amz frum Ruskia, I likey to play gamez very mooch thanking yuz. I build body to be strong, like bear in wild, and one dayz I havze wife to go boom boom wiz, yesh. Maybz boyfrendi, I don't know."
The game was HawkEye for the Commodore 64, and I believe it would have been around 1987 when I first played it. This event, changed, well structured the next 13 years of my life, simply towards games playing and the world around it, magazines, discussion etc. I have no idea just why the lure of computer games became so strong almost immediately and for such a length of time. Maybe even at that age escapism was a hallowed turf, much like people who had read all their life, maybe becoming another person was too much a temptation. Unfortunately I cannot remember much of my years pre 5, so I can't speculate that maybe I was trying to escape from something negative, so I'll have to assume it was the fun that comes with the fiction. You know what it is like when you play a game, and really play it, you're that guy in there, that beast or women or elf or anything? And for one reason or another, be it technical or story wise you're engrossed into the act of completing the challenges that come at you. Thinking about it that's all they ever were, something I found an interesting challenge, as well as an interesting product, although the real technical aspects were never really considered beyond it looking nice and making sure the bloody character moved when you wanted it to. Unlike mathematics or History or Literature at that point, persona could be bred from an outward influence into something I did, characters were pushed on you and you liked them or didn't. It was easier than reading a book and alot more interesting that school work. Persona, was not only given to you, but you could create it. An example of this from someone I know came to light yesterday, Peter Banks, say hello Peter
"I'm not gay; I'm just a graphic designer..."
Ok it's not Peter, but I couldn't find a picture on Photobucket.
Even yesterday he described to me that when he plays Command and Conquer, he completes a level so thoroughly he goes beyond the simple games parameters. Now those unfamiliar with C&C (as we'll now call it) should note that you choose one army of an opposing war, and in the game you have to often build from scratch a base, which you need to defend, while completing mission objectives, usually after collecting materials for commercial purposes in order to fund your army. Now Peter stated that when he starts a level, by the time he has finished it, he feels his base has to be so well entrenched defensively, and the map level so utterly explored and conquered that the enemy won't come back if he goes away. What we can gather from this is that he is in fact synchronizing real war time fears-although without any real life experience of war, but that doesn't matter in this case. Where as a General would try and consolidate his campaign for long term warfare in an area, involving supplies and policing etc, Peter transfers that to the game world. Yet, the mind set is still the same regardless of the actual situation. This can obviously lead to questions such as,
Do computer game scenarios have the possibility to help adapt people to certain situations training wise?
&
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?(Oh wait??)....
Now I know scientific studies have shown that hand to eye coordination improves with extended games playing. Your reaction time can increase much in the same way you train yourself to do sums mentally. Now let's not confuse that with games make you smarter, just thought I'd point you out. But what is interesting is looking into the question of what do people who play a lot of games think of the real world, what is their view about 'it' and themselves. To better understand this I think we have to look at social trends associated with children and maybe modern parenting, as an arm of the discussion; and the way in which children play now, as oppose to back way yonder. You can look at the way society has evolved into today. Since Sept 11th there has been one word attached to most media, terror. Terror inspires fear, fear of the outside and unknown. Now combine that with the already set in motion practice of destabilizing community and you have the recipe for an isolationist social ground. You could attribute that destabilization to the grab what you can attitude that was forced down people's throats towards the late 70's. there was a perceived collapse of order from the government and when the tough talking Iron whore Thatcher entered Number 10, people more than likely begrudgingly jumped to her beckon call for the sake of order and peace, possibly. Alpha male she was not, more like Omega the destroyer of rationale. But then, maybe that is what needed to be done. Anyway, when all that hit, and the embrace a yuppie culture filtered through to the 80's and 90's (LACK OF RESOLVE) and to the utterly bland and ineffective 00's (with its lack of effective counter culture. Something all culture strives on), society shifted to that glossy me me me my my my more more more view. Trades and actual abilities were sidelined education wise for computing degree and numbers work, almost as if such things as bricklaying and plumbing really wouldn't be needed any longer, and the scunners could be the ones to do it if it had to be done. Things became more insular, more isolated 'if I'm active in society people will take what I've worked for' was the thing people probably lived with, people hoarded their own lives and their goods, as that was the mark of their success. Attribute that to modern parenting. A parent is, being part of the last generation that played in tree's as a kid ?I'd say the latest born in the mid 80's as a general marker- more likely to plonk a kid in front of the Xbox than allow them out into the world. With the development of new houses on playing areas and the fear that pedo's will steal your child if you leave them alone, kids are now being raised as a product of a product of someone affected by the Hug-a-Yuppie generation. You have to say that this will effectively kill imagination in children. My mother put it best. When she was little they made games from a can, it could be anything, a ball, a target, a dodgy glove, a bloody pet to walk on a string. They had a lot more freedom to roam yet were in a stricter society, they had to use their imagination out in the world and as a result they gained valuable skills from living on the street for 4 hours after school and at weekends. We can of course look at say the early 80's and I can say 1st hand that I had both trees to climb and games to play, until about 12 when all it seemed people wanted to do was drink and fight, funnily people older than that do that now and have always done that.
So, let's say that there are a large proportion of kids sat in front of Tele screen playing games for hours on end, much like I and my friends did, the only difference was it was a lot less common pre Playstation days, that console exploded the market into the general consumers mindsets. We have these kids not learning about the world by 'getting their hands dirty' and they're only real experience of interaction is through the medium of fictional worlds in computer games. No, I'm not saying there will be a high percentage of people becoming warped into thinking the world is like a game, but what I'm trying to highlight is the fact that there will be people who think in such ways, they will objectify a person as that thing they see on screens in their houses. It's been a common known fact the Army uses for training purposes, simulation machines, I mean the DVLA now do it with regards to hazard awareness.
Signals
Life is about signals and information, we have already covered that understanding is boxing things in for the sake of definition. We take in the information and catagorise it, wind is wind, smells are smells and memories etc. The signals that come in are funneled and stored to be used in life scenarios, you experience A, get info B so when Experience A comes again, info B can be called upon, easy. Now if those signals are essentially from a fiction ?not that life is anything but- what does that say for acting and reacting in the 'real world?' Now I have a friend, Carl. And I can honestly say that he truly believes that his experiences on computer games such as say Goldeneye for the N64 could make him a world class sniper. Or that the reaction times hand and eye wise have helped him in fighting situations. Now with Carl, because he believes that there will be some element of truth, because he is so pig headed that he will just approach a situation as he did in game, say a fight, calmly and he will do things you wouldn't expect. This is as true story. He was once chased down Yorkshire Street in Oldham (Violent place) by some guy he was fighting in some kind of continuous battle in the road, now because he is so utterly into the idea that he can treat life like a game, he did something odd. He swung 360 degrees round a lamppost and clotheslined the guy, then fell over. Now that is a slightly amusing and relatively harmless example of that kind of mind, and we' be inclined to let it go, but the point is the mindset. I think it's very dangerous to dehumanize and objectify to the degree that people can be some kind of 2-D object, as I think people will get wrangled up into some kind of moral void with regards to their actions. You could easily say that such things could already be fully in place, and the last 2 generations raised on mass media entertainment has in some way already begun this process. Now no, I'm not blaming or saying ban anything, everything is an influence and everything is to be considered. It has long been the misconception of governmental bodies that they in some way need to attach blame to one particular thing as a cause for misdemeanor. It's not that simple and it's not that complex, but that is for a different time.
So, look at the facts.
Social Change > insular mindset and practice > explosion of home entertainment industry > the continuation of post Thatcherism and its effects on 'society.'
I'd just like to state that I do not believe society exists. I think it has to exist in idea in order to achieve any kind of order, but in actuality it is none more real than any one person's view of life being the definitive version, but as stated it needs to be kept in mind.
Do computer game scenarios have the possibility to help adapt people to certain situations training wise?
It can, and it can't. I personally have never approached any life situation in the manner of that attached to a game. Others will have, I'd like to say most won't. Everything is influence, ever. Yet there is no blame. It's a maddening circle, but you know for a fact life is not seen by everyone in that way, hence why things considered bad happen. I suppose, it makes things more interesting. So, what for the future? If the entertainment industry is so big now, that millions and millions are being influenced by these signals, what proportionately will be the state of things in say 20 years? And you have to look at the type of games released and the type of person attached to playing them. It's the case boys are more likely to pick up the quick blaster type game than the long winded world on a box type of game while they are younger, it is only when with maturity they attain a better understanding of game mechanics that they branch out to the bigger all consuming games such as Final Fantasy and Shenmue for example. This can be highlighted demographically by looking at the top selling games. You will find that they will be the Fifa series and the Grand Theft Auto series, so numbers wise there are more playing and being influenced by being a man on a crime spree than looking after chickens in the Nintendo game Animal Crossing: Wild World. Now break down say that number of games players to say a million. Now say 700,000 of a million plays that game a hell of a lot. Now let's break that down to 2 camps.
A. Influenced. A percentage of that number could quite feasibly take what they see and use that for life experiences, be it bad or good, depends on the person.
B. None influenced?speaks for itself.
So we could say that out of 700,000 about oooh say, 90,000 of them could quite possibly be 'warped' into an objectifying train of thought. This method of warping can be used on people for control purposes and I cite a conversation I had with an ex U.S Navy member. He stated that war wasn't war in America, to the soldiers. It wasn't people, and families and villages they were going to. It was combat, the enemy, the battlefield, simple as that. When they jumped they literally did and quite in line with a cliché say how high. Even the man I spoke to, who knew of the nonsense of it all, stated that he had always wanted to see what combat was like. He wanted to know what it felt like to rush a group of people who were the enemy, kill them and move on. He wanted dog fights, missile launches, because it was exciting a prospect. Now you've seen it on the news. American G.I's breaking down and realising just what the living fuck 'combat' is (I wonder how many spell combat with a K) You see them telling the world through clouded eyes that no one can imagine the scenes out there. These men, these deluded and trained men were sent off like the police in House of the Dead to kill those brown zombies in the name of something they didn't really care about, in a place they didn't know existed until someone said, that's the bad guy. Now we can look at the influences these people came under to achieve that mindset. Insular national values, saturated with pop and media and fictional ideals about life and society, warped.
That conversation opened my eyes up to just how much of a, in a way predetermined force we are. You could argue all this is a natural social development. Increased population, the changing face of commerce -from agriculture to finance, not everyone can be involved- added to the human practice of finding things to do to pass the time, has led to where we are today. If you think about it, all anything created was, was in the pursuit of something to do.
"What's this?"
"A wheel."
"Why? "
"Something to do."
In face of boredom, things are done for entertainments sake, and seeing as people are no longer directly involved in the actual creation for the sake of means to further society, we have created and allowed entertainment to come to such a high fruition. This was all utterly planned within our coding. I truly believe that from the very moment the universe began, by default everything, because it's out of control, is essentially by human understanding, planned, well not planed just organized.. A to B and back again. We have always been influenced, but the difference is that now; we receive very, by the main stay of humanities standards unnatural signals. Fiction is reality and reality creates fiction and it perpetuates thusly. That fiction, that society, that idea that, non reality and reality in tandem can be defined in one word. Culture. Society is nature's active paradox of culture and civilization. It is not society that furthers humanity, its culture, for that is what 'we' do. We do culture, we create it and it filters through society. Civilization is again an ideal, it being the rules we live by and whose boundaries we contain ourselves to are supposedly advanced in comparison to societies previous workings. There is a loop here. If society is based on the natural coding of the animal that lives within, it is therefore natural for any of it inhabitants to act in any of the variable ways, be it crime, order, anything. As a result civilization is furthered in accordance with the idea that society is something tangible and controllable, when it if in fact not, as it is out of our control. A paradox is something contradictory, something that exists in a seemingly impossible loop (in time terms you can look at the grandfather paradox. If you go back and kill your grandfather your father will not exist thus you won't, but the fact you have killed him must mean you do exist, and if you don't exist to kill him, he will not die, meaning you will exist, and kill him?so on and so on and so on). I feel that society is contradictory, in that it strives to control itself, yet never will, thus will go through the loops of decay and prominence until, well?who knows.
Boys and Girls playing together in harmony?I wonder.
Social trends being what they are, we can look at what kind of effect games have on boys and girls, and vice versa?what boys and girls have effect wise on games. Now as we all know the games market is heavily male, yet now there are more and more girls buying and playing games. Now 'playing' trends through out the ages have always had one common bond gender wise. Boys have had the type of toys which promote exploration for the sake of it. Girl's toys have been interwoven with an aspect of domestic learning. Girls play with babies and prams, boys play with tucks. One is key to life as it exists (children, the home), as a breeding unit of man and woman, and the other is going brrr raaa ptschtewww with a pretend car. Now my next lot of info is from the ELSPA White Paper publication, Chicks with Joysticks by Aleks Krotoski (The Yank from BITS if you remember that, Channel 4, late night, erotic)
"The results of in-depth interviews with 20 women who play games
indicate that favourite titles include role playing games like the
Final Fantasy series (Square Enix, 1987), narrative adventures
like Legend of Zelda (Nintendo, 1987), easy-to-pick up driving
simulations like Colin McRae Rally (Codemasters, 1998), puzzleadventures
like Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (UbiSo--, 2003),
quick-fire arcade puzzlers like Tetris (Atari, 1988) and life
simulations like The Sims (EA/Maxis, 2000).
Those who reported that they particularly enjoyed action titles like
Halo; Combat Evolved (Microsoft, 2002) suggested similar reasons
for their satisfaction with the game as those who preferred nonaction
titles.
The presence of a good plot, rich characterisations, choice in
how they pursue goals, freedom of self-expression, novelty in
challenges, immersion in atmospheric virtual environments, pickup-
and-play capabilities and flexibility.
Women also indicate that identifying with a character is important"
For full report go to,
http://www.elspa.com/assets/files/c/chicksandjoysticksanexplorationofwomenandgaming_176.pdf
My main point with that is, that as a player of those type of games, those type of shall we say mature games, it seems that the gap is bridging between the two most non popular, demographically, types of gamers. Boys who do not buy Grand Theft Auto and girls, full stop. I'm not going to expand on this, as doing so would mean having to analyse the whole Japanese game market, which frankly is the most modern style Romanesque hole of psychological depravity ever?.so no.
One thing I am interested in is the perceptions of women in games, as in as characters. When I was 15 I used to throw Lara croft into the swimming pool and masturbate as she drowned, I also have very violent sexual fantasies. I wonder if they're linked.
Bye.
My very 1st experience of a computer game was at the Russians, say hello Russian
(Note: I'm not actually friends with Dolph Lungdren, but my friend is Russian like)
"Hellozki, I amz frum Ruskia, I likey to play gamez very mooch thanking yuz. I build body to be strong, like bear in wild, and one dayz I havze wife to go boom boom wiz, yesh. Maybz boyfrendi, I don't know."
The game was HawkEye for the Commodore 64, and I believe it would have been around 1987 when I first played it. This event, changed, well structured the next 13 years of my life, simply towards games playing and the world around it, magazines, discussion etc. I have no idea just why the lure of computer games became so strong almost immediately and for such a length of time. Maybe even at that age escapism was a hallowed turf, much like people who had read all their life, maybe becoming another person was too much a temptation. Unfortunately I cannot remember much of my years pre 5, so I can't speculate that maybe I was trying to escape from something negative, so I'll have to assume it was the fun that comes with the fiction. You know what it is like when you play a game, and really play it, you're that guy in there, that beast or women or elf or anything? And for one reason or another, be it technical or story wise you're engrossed into the act of completing the challenges that come at you. Thinking about it that's all they ever were, something I found an interesting challenge, as well as an interesting product, although the real technical aspects were never really considered beyond it looking nice and making sure the bloody character moved when you wanted it to. Unlike mathematics or History or Literature at that point, persona could be bred from an outward influence into something I did, characters were pushed on you and you liked them or didn't. It was easier than reading a book and alot more interesting that school work. Persona, was not only given to you, but you could create it. An example of this from someone I know came to light yesterday, Peter Banks, say hello Peter
"I'm not gay; I'm just a graphic designer..."
Ok it's not Peter, but I couldn't find a picture on Photobucket.
Even yesterday he described to me that when he plays Command and Conquer, he completes a level so thoroughly he goes beyond the simple games parameters. Now those unfamiliar with C&C (as we'll now call it) should note that you choose one army of an opposing war, and in the game you have to often build from scratch a base, which you need to defend, while completing mission objectives, usually after collecting materials for commercial purposes in order to fund your army. Now Peter stated that when he starts a level, by the time he has finished it, he feels his base has to be so well entrenched defensively, and the map level so utterly explored and conquered that the enemy won't come back if he goes away. What we can gather from this is that he is in fact synchronizing real war time fears-although without any real life experience of war, but that doesn't matter in this case. Where as a General would try and consolidate his campaign for long term warfare in an area, involving supplies and policing etc, Peter transfers that to the game world. Yet, the mind set is still the same regardless of the actual situation. This can obviously lead to questions such as,
Do computer game scenarios have the possibility to help adapt people to certain situations training wise?
&
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?(Oh wait??)....
Now I know scientific studies have shown that hand to eye coordination improves with extended games playing. Your reaction time can increase much in the same way you train yourself to do sums mentally. Now let's not confuse that with games make you smarter, just thought I'd point you out. But what is interesting is looking into the question of what do people who play a lot of games think of the real world, what is their view about 'it' and themselves. To better understand this I think we have to look at social trends associated with children and maybe modern parenting, as an arm of the discussion; and the way in which children play now, as oppose to back way yonder. You can look at the way society has evolved into today. Since Sept 11th there has been one word attached to most media, terror. Terror inspires fear, fear of the outside and unknown. Now combine that with the already set in motion practice of destabilizing community and you have the recipe for an isolationist social ground. You could attribute that destabilization to the grab what you can attitude that was forced down people's throats towards the late 70's. there was a perceived collapse of order from the government and when the tough talking Iron whore Thatcher entered Number 10, people more than likely begrudgingly jumped to her beckon call for the sake of order and peace, possibly. Alpha male she was not, more like Omega the destroyer of rationale. But then, maybe that is what needed to be done. Anyway, when all that hit, and the embrace a yuppie culture filtered through to the 80's and 90's (LACK OF RESOLVE) and to the utterly bland and ineffective 00's (with its lack of effective counter culture. Something all culture strives on), society shifted to that glossy me me me my my my more more more view. Trades and actual abilities were sidelined education wise for computing degree and numbers work, almost as if such things as bricklaying and plumbing really wouldn't be needed any longer, and the scunners could be the ones to do it if it had to be done. Things became more insular, more isolated 'if I'm active in society people will take what I've worked for' was the thing people probably lived with, people hoarded their own lives and their goods, as that was the mark of their success. Attribute that to modern parenting. A parent is, being part of the last generation that played in tree's as a kid ?I'd say the latest born in the mid 80's as a general marker- more likely to plonk a kid in front of the Xbox than allow them out into the world. With the development of new houses on playing areas and the fear that pedo's will steal your child if you leave them alone, kids are now being raised as a product of a product of someone affected by the Hug-a-Yuppie generation. You have to say that this will effectively kill imagination in children. My mother put it best. When she was little they made games from a can, it could be anything, a ball, a target, a dodgy glove, a bloody pet to walk on a string. They had a lot more freedom to roam yet were in a stricter society, they had to use their imagination out in the world and as a result they gained valuable skills from living on the street for 4 hours after school and at weekends. We can of course look at say the early 80's and I can say 1st hand that I had both trees to climb and games to play, until about 12 when all it seemed people wanted to do was drink and fight, funnily people older than that do that now and have always done that.
So, let's say that there are a large proportion of kids sat in front of Tele screen playing games for hours on end, much like I and my friends did, the only difference was it was a lot less common pre Playstation days, that console exploded the market into the general consumers mindsets. We have these kids not learning about the world by 'getting their hands dirty' and they're only real experience of interaction is through the medium of fictional worlds in computer games. No, I'm not saying there will be a high percentage of people becoming warped into thinking the world is like a game, but what I'm trying to highlight is the fact that there will be people who think in such ways, they will objectify a person as that thing they see on screens in their houses. It's been a common known fact the Army uses for training purposes, simulation machines, I mean the DVLA now do it with regards to hazard awareness.
Signals
Life is about signals and information, we have already covered that understanding is boxing things in for the sake of definition. We take in the information and catagorise it, wind is wind, smells are smells and memories etc. The signals that come in are funneled and stored to be used in life scenarios, you experience A, get info B so when Experience A comes again, info B can be called upon, easy. Now if those signals are essentially from a fiction ?not that life is anything but- what does that say for acting and reacting in the 'real world?' Now I have a friend, Carl. And I can honestly say that he truly believes that his experiences on computer games such as say Goldeneye for the N64 could make him a world class sniper. Or that the reaction times hand and eye wise have helped him in fighting situations. Now with Carl, because he believes that there will be some element of truth, because he is so pig headed that he will just approach a situation as he did in game, say a fight, calmly and he will do things you wouldn't expect. This is as true story. He was once chased down Yorkshire Street in Oldham (Violent place) by some guy he was fighting in some kind of continuous battle in the road, now because he is so utterly into the idea that he can treat life like a game, he did something odd. He swung 360 degrees round a lamppost and clotheslined the guy, then fell over. Now that is a slightly amusing and relatively harmless example of that kind of mind, and we' be inclined to let it go, but the point is the mindset. I think it's very dangerous to dehumanize and objectify to the degree that people can be some kind of 2-D object, as I think people will get wrangled up into some kind of moral void with regards to their actions. You could easily say that such things could already be fully in place, and the last 2 generations raised on mass media entertainment has in some way already begun this process. Now no, I'm not blaming or saying ban anything, everything is an influence and everything is to be considered. It has long been the misconception of governmental bodies that they in some way need to attach blame to one particular thing as a cause for misdemeanor. It's not that simple and it's not that complex, but that is for a different time.
So, look at the facts.
Social Change > insular mindset and practice > explosion of home entertainment industry > the continuation of post Thatcherism and its effects on 'society.'
I'd just like to state that I do not believe society exists. I think it has to exist in idea in order to achieve any kind of order, but in actuality it is none more real than any one person's view of life being the definitive version, but as stated it needs to be kept in mind.
Do computer game scenarios have the possibility to help adapt people to certain situations training wise?
It can, and it can't. I personally have never approached any life situation in the manner of that attached to a game. Others will have, I'd like to say most won't. Everything is influence, ever. Yet there is no blame. It's a maddening circle, but you know for a fact life is not seen by everyone in that way, hence why things considered bad happen. I suppose, it makes things more interesting. So, what for the future? If the entertainment industry is so big now, that millions and millions are being influenced by these signals, what proportionately will be the state of things in say 20 years? And you have to look at the type of games released and the type of person attached to playing them. It's the case boys are more likely to pick up the quick blaster type game than the long winded world on a box type of game while they are younger, it is only when with maturity they attain a better understanding of game mechanics that they branch out to the bigger all consuming games such as Final Fantasy and Shenmue for example. This can be highlighted demographically by looking at the top selling games. You will find that they will be the Fifa series and the Grand Theft Auto series, so numbers wise there are more playing and being influenced by being a man on a crime spree than looking after chickens in the Nintendo game Animal Crossing: Wild World. Now break down say that number of games players to say a million. Now say 700,000 of a million plays that game a hell of a lot. Now let's break that down to 2 camps.
A. Influenced. A percentage of that number could quite feasibly take what they see and use that for life experiences, be it bad or good, depends on the person.
B. None influenced?speaks for itself.
So we could say that out of 700,000 about oooh say, 90,000 of them could quite possibly be 'warped' into an objectifying train of thought. This method of warping can be used on people for control purposes and I cite a conversation I had with an ex U.S Navy member. He stated that war wasn't war in America, to the soldiers. It wasn't people, and families and villages they were going to. It was combat, the enemy, the battlefield, simple as that. When they jumped they literally did and quite in line with a cliché say how high. Even the man I spoke to, who knew of the nonsense of it all, stated that he had always wanted to see what combat was like. He wanted to know what it felt like to rush a group of people who were the enemy, kill them and move on. He wanted dog fights, missile launches, because it was exciting a prospect. Now you've seen it on the news. American G.I's breaking down and realising just what the living fuck 'combat' is (I wonder how many spell combat with a K) You see them telling the world through clouded eyes that no one can imagine the scenes out there. These men, these deluded and trained men were sent off like the police in House of the Dead to kill those brown zombies in the name of something they didn't really care about, in a place they didn't know existed until someone said, that's the bad guy. Now we can look at the influences these people came under to achieve that mindset. Insular national values, saturated with pop and media and fictional ideals about life and society, warped.
That conversation opened my eyes up to just how much of a, in a way predetermined force we are. You could argue all this is a natural social development. Increased population, the changing face of commerce -from agriculture to finance, not everyone can be involved- added to the human practice of finding things to do to pass the time, has led to where we are today. If you think about it, all anything created was, was in the pursuit of something to do.
"What's this?"
"A wheel."
"Why? "
"Something to do."
In face of boredom, things are done for entertainments sake, and seeing as people are no longer directly involved in the actual creation for the sake of means to further society, we have created and allowed entertainment to come to such a high fruition. This was all utterly planned within our coding. I truly believe that from the very moment the universe began, by default everything, because it's out of control, is essentially by human understanding, planned, well not planed just organized.. A to B and back again. We have always been influenced, but the difference is that now; we receive very, by the main stay of humanities standards unnatural signals. Fiction is reality and reality creates fiction and it perpetuates thusly. That fiction, that society, that idea that, non reality and reality in tandem can be defined in one word. Culture. Society is nature's active paradox of culture and civilization. It is not society that furthers humanity, its culture, for that is what 'we' do. We do culture, we create it and it filters through society. Civilization is again an ideal, it being the rules we live by and whose boundaries we contain ourselves to are supposedly advanced in comparison to societies previous workings. There is a loop here. If society is based on the natural coding of the animal that lives within, it is therefore natural for any of it inhabitants to act in any of the variable ways, be it crime, order, anything. As a result civilization is furthered in accordance with the idea that society is something tangible and controllable, when it if in fact not, as it is out of our control. A paradox is something contradictory, something that exists in a seemingly impossible loop (in time terms you can look at the grandfather paradox. If you go back and kill your grandfather your father will not exist thus you won't, but the fact you have killed him must mean you do exist, and if you don't exist to kill him, he will not die, meaning you will exist, and kill him?so on and so on and so on). I feel that society is contradictory, in that it strives to control itself, yet never will, thus will go through the loops of decay and prominence until, well?who knows.
Boys and Girls playing together in harmony?I wonder.
Social trends being what they are, we can look at what kind of effect games have on boys and girls, and vice versa?what boys and girls have effect wise on games. Now as we all know the games market is heavily male, yet now there are more and more girls buying and playing games. Now 'playing' trends through out the ages have always had one common bond gender wise. Boys have had the type of toys which promote exploration for the sake of it. Girl's toys have been interwoven with an aspect of domestic learning. Girls play with babies and prams, boys play with tucks. One is key to life as it exists (children, the home), as a breeding unit of man and woman, and the other is going brrr raaa ptschtewww with a pretend car. Now my next lot of info is from the ELSPA White Paper publication, Chicks with Joysticks by Aleks Krotoski (The Yank from BITS if you remember that, Channel 4, late night, erotic)
"The results of in-depth interviews with 20 women who play games
indicate that favourite titles include role playing games like the
Final Fantasy series (Square Enix, 1987), narrative adventures
like Legend of Zelda (Nintendo, 1987), easy-to-pick up driving
simulations like Colin McRae Rally (Codemasters, 1998), puzzleadventures
like Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (UbiSo--, 2003),
quick-fire arcade puzzlers like Tetris (Atari, 1988) and life
simulations like The Sims (EA/Maxis, 2000).
Those who reported that they particularly enjoyed action titles like
Halo; Combat Evolved (Microsoft, 2002) suggested similar reasons
for their satisfaction with the game as those who preferred nonaction
titles.
The presence of a good plot, rich characterisations, choice in
how they pursue goals, freedom of self-expression, novelty in
challenges, immersion in atmospheric virtual environments, pickup-
and-play capabilities and flexibility.
Women also indicate that identifying with a character is important"
For full report go to,
http://www.elspa.com/assets/files/c/chicksandjoysticksanexplorationofwomenandgaming_176.pdf
My main point with that is, that as a player of those type of games, those type of shall we say mature games, it seems that the gap is bridging between the two most non popular, demographically, types of gamers. Boys who do not buy Grand Theft Auto and girls, full stop. I'm not going to expand on this, as doing so would mean having to analyse the whole Japanese game market, which frankly is the most modern style Romanesque hole of psychological depravity ever?.so no.
One thing I am interested in is the perceptions of women in games, as in as characters. When I was 15 I used to throw Lara croft into the swimming pool and masturbate as she drowned, I also have very violent sexual fantasies. I wonder if they're linked.
Bye.