Popular Culture

I attended an invited panel session at CRPP today entitled: Popular Culture and Education is Asia. Panel included Peter Demerath (University of Minnesota), Zawawi Ibrahim (University Malaya) and Yoshitaka Mori (Tokyo University of the Arts).

What I take away for my research are these questions:

From Demerath

1. MMOG is a playground that attracts players from all nooks and corners of the world. Various culture and practices emerge when people of all background meet and interact. Players become "cultural innovators" whose identities emerge from the negotiation and "orchestration" of competing discourses and social structures.

Beyond MMOG, what are the multiple networks that have "educational effects" on players' identity development?

How is the mass culture associated with globalising era, consumerism and individual freedom mediate players' identity development?

What kind of cultural resources players draw on to make powerful moral judgment about appropriate selves?

How players' identities impact how they "read" and what they take away from playing?

How to establish players' critical media and digital literacy? How do they learn these? And how they impact how players "read" and what they take away from playing?

From Zawawi

2. Cosplay is one of the emerging popular culture associated with media and videogames that transcend beyond game environment into the real world. Granado Espada too is a big hit with players for its baroque period costumes. I wonder what motivate players to engage in cosplay and how immersing in this culture (whether they are participants or just observers) impact how they "read" and what they take away from playing.

From Mori

3. When popular icon in television or videogame crosses into the realm of players' everyday life (Mori used the example of Doremon who makes an appearance in textbooks and other print materials), how would players read this development?

Do they see it to mean that the television programme or videogame associated with the popular icon is accepted by society as safe and good?

How would this perception impact how they "read" and what they take away from playing?

Granado Espada is the first and so far the only MMOG recommended to be used in Singapore Schools. While it has yet to make an appearance in the curriculum hours, only find solace in after-school activities, still what does it mean to players when they can play GE in school.

Another day to go for the conference tomorrow. I hope to take away as many probing questions for my research as possible.

Choosing from four screens: Interactivity still does not impact narrative

Following up on Wesolowski's great article Beyond Pacing: Games Aren't Hollywood, Wesolowski argues that cinematic narrative is only possible because of the absence of any interactivity in films. He adds that any decision made about a film (even decision to stop watching), is made outside the process of film watching. "Within the process, there are no decision you can make with regard to the film you're watching." So no audience interactivity here like in games.

A respondent to Wesolowski's article brings to attention one possible exception, the experimental film "Timecode" by Mike Figgis. He says "The film consists of 4 scenes shown on the screen simultaneously (which take place in real time, without cuts), but the audio only comes from one of the scenes. In the theatrical release, Figgis controls the audio for what he wants the audience to pay attention to. However, in the DVD release, the watcher is allowed to switch the audio channel at will, so you do have direct control of how the movie plays out, at least as far as the sound goes."

While I agree there is somewhat limited audience interactivity in Timecode, I can't see how such interactivity have any bearing to the narrative of the film. The film narrative continue to be linear and audience are not shaping the outcome of its narrative. Choosing which screen to see may give the audience one perspectival view if the shots focus on looking at what is happening in the film from one character's lens. Choosing to look at different characters' lens may give the audience more complete picture from every characters' perspectives. Still, even when, as Wesolowski puts it, "when miscommunication happens, a film just goes on at its own pace".

Another interesting note from Wesolowski is his comment about films that encourage thinking and discussion. He says

" ...the process of building an interpretation. The message of a film is not delivered instantly. It takes time, so your perception of the film and its message changes over time. Your reaction to film is your own, individual process - you kind of "play the Reservoir Dogs game" in your head. But it doesn't affect the way you watch the film, only the way you interpret it. Again, it happens outside of the process of film watching. Naturally, you can discuss or even object to the film's message. But the message itself won't change. "

In games, interpretation and actions on what is perceived and interpreted are live, and they mediates the outcome of the narrative.

Wesolowski's Games Aren't Hollywood

Another word for "pacing" is "storytelling". We never tell stories to players; we just put them in games. Then players tell our stories to themselves.

- J. Wesolowski

There is a great article in Gamasutra by Jacek Wesolowski entitled Beyond Pacing: Games Aren't Hollywood. Reading the article makes me wonder how Steven Spielberg inaugural videogames will look like. Will it has the same cinematic effect like his many epic films. God knows.

In his article Wesolowski argues that "games aren't Hollywood". According to him, in many blockbuster films, you find a prescribed formula to achieve "cinematic effect of mounting tension" that glues the audience to their feet, roller-coastering their emotions over alternate climatic peaks and downslide reliefs, and at the end of the movie they are "left shaken and wanting for more". This effect can be achieved when the intensity is paced as "an increasing wave of peaks and relief".

Wesolowski argues that in games you cannot pace intensity as you see in film for the fundamental reasons that unlike film:

• games are not linear
• games are interactive
• the audience are not passive but participate in the shaping the outcome of game narratives
• games rely on repetitions
• games are "three to twenty times as long as film" (so intensity is much slower and hardly noticeable when compares to film)
• games has "more individual action sequences than in film" and so more difficult to connect gameplay and narrative
• games needs redundancy because "you never know which part the player is paying the most attention to"

Further, he argues that intensity in games works differently than in film when he says that in games:

... we can either escalate sensory stimuli or build up abstract meaning. The former happens when guns, explosions or enemies get bigger, putting the Hero in a greater danger than before. The latter happens when each part of a narrative means something -- but together they mean something else. "I am your father, Luke" is more than just a paternity acknowledgment.

These two kinds of intensity tickle different parts of our brains. Escalation is visceral and relies on our perception, while meaning buildup is cognitive and relies on our understanding. Escalation is temporary, because it's easy to replace a big gun with a small one.

Meaning lasts. Once we learn to like a character, it takes a lot to convince us to hate them.

To make things even more difficult, he adds, what players take away from escalation and meaning build-up are mediated by players' subjectivity. He says:

You can give them a bigger gun, but they may still like the previous one better, because it made a nicer sound, or because it fit their style. You can give them a useless but funny sidekick, and they may not appreciate it if they are challenge-oriented.

[...]

Audience tastes differ, too, but most filmgoers will agree they watch films for one or more aspects of the narrative.A player may or may not care about other players, the story, the challenge, the opportunity to express themselves, and so on. The game's message needs to be much more robust, because you never know which part the player is paying the most attention to.

But all is not lost. Moving away from pacing Hollywood style and looking at four exemplary games, Wesolowski suggests that pacing can be done by 1) players' skills, 2) balancing sections of play between giving players the liberty to do whatever they want and forcing them to play through short introductory sections, 3) setting, and 4) allowing events to emerge that guide players' decision.

Wesolowski concludes that pacing is "a complex function of player actions, parametrized by game's dynamics and aesthetics." He adds:

It's a dynamic, rather than preset feature, hence it's difficult, and sometimes impossible to specify it upfront and then design a game to it. We can't just take the increasing wave, and slap it onto the gameplay.

We often see ourselves as all-powerful creators of worlds. Our job is to present, and our players' job is to admire. But in reality, our job is to create an interesting, consistent, and interactive system.

All of its components, including decorations, and the narrative, are interdependent. If the underlying process is interesting, rewarding and entertaining, then it will create a compelling intensity pattern dynamically. We don't have to predefine the pace.

Another word for "pacing" is "storytelling". We never really tell stories to players; we just put them in games. Then players tell our stories to themselves.

Wesolowski's article provides game designers' perspective on players' gameplay and is congruent with game researchers' findings that players may not necessarily play according to how a game is designed but exercise some degree of agency in shaping the kind of game playing experience they wish to engage in.