Month: December 2004

OT: The same Results from Contrary Assumptions

Now that the week’s been rather grim, let’s touch on something else that’s also depressing.

A review in The New Republic discusses comparisons between Hitler and Stalin. Always a dangerous thing to do, but the review points to what is possibly the most ignored lesson of history these days: Nazism assumed that all human traits were based completely on race and biology, but Stalinism assumed that there was no DNA nor human nature. While in theory completely opposed, both assumptions killed millions of people.

Strangely, the dangers of the second assumption are frequently ignored.

I think the most dangerous thing you can do is to think that your personal beliefs are inherently good.

Happy new year.

Do you identify with this dot character?

1up has a hilarious article with kids trying out classic games (or perhaps “classic” games).
About Adventure for the 2600:

EGM: Do you identify with this dot character?

Garret: No. The dot is small. I am not.

Bobby: Yeah. My best friend, he looks just like this dot: small, handsome and adventurous.

EGM: How long would you put up with this game?

Garret: I could put up with this game for five more minutes.

Bobby: I could put up with this game for hours, but I’m so easily amused. How about we just pretend this is the new Metal Gear Solid Snake Eater game.

I would love to see them trying out Elite – I have a heretic belief that though the game pioneered open-ended gameplay and people talk about Elite as something absolutely wonderful, it would be completely unplayable today.

Today, God help me, I bought an exercise step

Watercoolergames pointed me to the Yourself! Fitness game.

But the IGN review is everything you ever wanted: The overweight, out-of-shape, hardcore gamer tongue-in-cheek trying to pick up a physical exercise regimen from the in-game personal trainer, Maya. (Named of the modeling program?)

I can’t come up with anything better than what the review says, so I’ll just quote some good bits:

Today, God help me, I bought an exercise step.
A week ago I bought some hand weights.

Last came a flexibility measurement. Sit on the floor, legs out, feet 12 inches apart, and bennnnd. Hold it. Now compare yourself to the onscreen bendy dolls and choose the closest one. I got as far as my calves.

Special note — one of the bendy folks on the screen is actually folded face first into the floor. Ha ha, Maya is such a kidder! Let’s all go to the circus!

I think regular readers of some women’s magazines will find the following a silly question, but it’s pretty good:

Another oddity is the meditation garden. While I am sure the routines are fantastic for someone more flexible than I am, I have no idea if or when I am supposed to use this thing. Is it a workout? Is it a relaxation area? Why would I go in there? The manual does not provide much depth.

So there is the whole question about target audience:

The Yourself!Fitness web site is woman-oriented, as are all the in-game graphics. The loading screens feature tips and advice from Prevention magazine, and some of the statements are geared directly towards women. I understand the desire and design to get women more interested in gaming and consoles in general, but let’s not be solely focused on one half of the population.

We can then discuss whether this thing really is a game, or just something that is distributed through the game channel.

Double-coding

With the discussion of academia vs. industry/practice blossoming at Intelligent Artifice and Terra Nova, a comment at the Zen of Design blog strikes a chord:

Double-coding is the practice of creating a work of art that speaks to two different audiences in different ways. It’s most often used to describe Children’s shows that also entertain adults. For example, Animaniacs and the classic Bugs Bunny cartoons are double-coded well – they have many references that a child won’t get but will amuse an adult. ‘Blues Clues’ is not double-coded – and as such, an adult watching it will be put to sleep.

Double-coding is what we, the academics (pick one) are / should be / shouldn’t be doing: Creating work that speaks to academics and to developers at the same time.

Academics are Stupid!

Actually, I say the above frequently.

But in First Person, Mark Barrett has written a response to Janet Murray’s article on cyberdrama.

Discussion at Intelligent Artifice.

Suffice to say that video game academics (all of us) get a terrible review. If you ask me, Barrett is doing some unnuanced generalizations, and he is about as wrong as he is right.
Since he seems to heavily dislike all academic video game theory ever, I wonder what kind of theory he would like? What would industry- (or Barrett-) friendly theory look like?