Homework for March 15th
Johnson really gets things right it seems like. The first thing he talks about is the idea of a Sleeper curve. This refers to the idea that for the longest time people have always talked about and looked at games in a negative light, without even starting to look at the positive aspects they have. Johnson thinks that people are starting to "get" games as a useful teaching tool. The Sleeper curve is also a thing that happens because the player is an active participant in the narrative. In other media, the author has to tell you everything about the world because that is the only way the reader will learn about the world. They have to tell you everything because the printed word or film isn't interactive. You absorb what is told to you and continue on. Since you can actively move around a game enviroment, the player has a lot more room to explore different areas of the story and the game world. You can see this Sleeper Curve in every game you have ever played.This is mostly trial and error style learning. You learn how to time your jumps in Mario, you learn when to use a turbo boost in Burnout. The only way you can learn these things is by doing, not by letting the game do it for you like a book or film.
Telescoping is the idea of looking deeper into the game world and using what you learn to drive your gameplay experience. You have to take what you learn and apply it to the game. Once you learn a new move or hear of a new area to explore, the player has a desire to see these new moves or areas.
Johnson pretty much blows off the whole violent games thing for a few reasons. One that he mentions is that it has been done to death. There are thousands of articles and studies done about games and this isn't the focus of his writing. Johnson's focus is purely on thought processes related to games. How a person learns from a game and applies that knowledge to the game. I think Johnson is dimissive because of the approch he is taking to looking at games. Most writers are there to look for flaws, it's human nature because it's easier to find something that is wrong or doesn't work and talk about that and still sound smart. It's like the idea that if someone goes to a store and gets a gallon of milk and doesn't have a problem, they think nothing of it. If the same person goes to the store and they only have 2% when they like Skim, that person tells everyone they know that the store they went to is a bunch of 2% having jerks. Talking about games is no different. People see the violence or other problems of games and pounce on them, without taking the time to see what games offer. Johnson on the other hand takes the approch that ignores the bad for the sake of examining the positive side. I guess when he went to the store they had his type of milk.
Johnson really gets things right it seems like. The first thing he talks about is the idea of a Sleeper curve. This refers to the idea that for the longest time people have always talked about and looked at games in a negative light, without even starting to look at the positive aspects they have. Johnson thinks that people are starting to "get" games as a useful teaching tool. The Sleeper curve is also a thing that happens because the player is an active participant in the narrative. In other media, the author has to tell you everything about the world because that is the only way the reader will learn about the world. They have to tell you everything because the printed word or film isn't interactive. You absorb what is told to you and continue on. Since you can actively move around a game enviroment, the player has a lot more room to explore different areas of the story and the game world. You can see this Sleeper Curve in every game you have ever played.This is mostly trial and error style learning. You learn how to time your jumps in Mario, you learn when to use a turbo boost in Burnout. The only way you can learn these things is by doing, not by letting the game do it for you like a book or film.
Telescoping is the idea of looking deeper into the game world and using what you learn to drive your gameplay experience. You have to take what you learn and apply it to the game. Once you learn a new move or hear of a new area to explore, the player has a desire to see these new moves or areas.
Johnson pretty much blows off the whole violent games thing for a few reasons. One that he mentions is that it has been done to death. There are thousands of articles and studies done about games and this isn't the focus of his writing. Johnson's focus is purely on thought processes related to games. How a person learns from a game and applies that knowledge to the game. I think Johnson is dimissive because of the approch he is taking to looking at games. Most writers are there to look for flaws, it's human nature because it's easier to find something that is wrong or doesn't work and talk about that and still sound smart. It's like the idea that if someone goes to a store and gets a gallon of milk and doesn't have a problem, they think nothing of it. If the same person goes to the store and they only have 2% when they like Skim, that person tells everyone they know that the store they went to is a bunch of 2% having jerks. Talking about games is no different. People see the violence or other problems of games and pounce on them, without taking the time to see what games offer. Johnson on the other hand takes the approch that ignores the bad for the sake of examining the positive side. I guess when he went to the store they had his type of milk.
posted by The Poison Ninja at 11:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home