Adding a microphone and a mock drum set to Guitar Hero’s two guitar peripherals, Rock Band allows players to form a virtual band in the most advanced music game series to date. However, what truly sets Rock Band apart from its predecessors is its engaging story that makes even dreadful musicians feel like rock superstars.
The first step to creating a rock band within the game is to personalize the four band members—the guitarist, the bass player, the singer, and the drummer. Each player can customize their character’s name, appearance, hometown, and attitude, each of which plays a distinct role in the main story of the game. This feature of Rock Band is one of its innovations: previous music games like Guitar Hero force players to choose from a short list of pre-made characters, while Rock Band allows users to design characters modeled after themselves, helping to connect them to the story. The players must then name their band and designate their band’s hometown. Possibilities for hometowns range from Los Angeles or New York, to even foreign cities such as London and Paris. The band’s hometown represents the area where their first concerts will be played.
The main plot of the game simulates the desires of players to start a band and become legendary. Rock Band engages players in the story by starting them off as an inexperienced band that must play at small venues to gain renown. Users can connect with this simulation because they are, in real life, an inexperienced band that has no reputation (unless a real four person rock band played the game). To gain a reputation, the band must choose a set of songs to play for their first hometown concert. The only songs available to play are the easiest songs because the band is inexperienced, both in the game and in real life (again, most likely). However, after completing their first concert by hitting, singing, and strumming enough correct notes, the band in the game begins to deviate from reality. As the band plays more concerts, they are continually offered to play in new venues across the world. Some venues will reward the band with special items needed to play in their final concert—the “Endless Set List.” The band will collect, in this order: a van, a tour bus, “roadies,” a plane, a “sound guy,” bodyguards, a public relations firm, and a “Hall of Fame Induction.” As the band is rewarded with each item, the game plays a cut scene displaying how the item is going to be used and how the band is progressing. The band can then see which item they most need to collect next, which encourages them to play the game more. Noticing that the van allowed them to travel to a different city to play concerts, a band might become curious as to what acquiring the plane will allow them to do, which turns out to unlock concert venues internationally.
The primary effects of Rock Band’s story are that it encourages users to play the game more so that they develop their skills and makes them feel like they are becoming legendary rock stars. When these two effects are intertwined, they create a game that is engaging for its players. The story gives players a reason to remain attached to the game, and invites its players to further explore its capabilities by motivating them with more of the story if they play more. Not only do players feel like a real band, but they simultaneously watch a story unfold about a band that has risen from an unknown garage band to a Hall of Fame rock band. The only way that players can see the end of this story is by playing the game more.
Rock Band uses narrative as its main method of motivation for keeping players engaged with the game. Its lofty critical acclaim (Gamerankings) shows that people enjoy engaging in stories within games. The appeal in Rock Band of becoming a star through the simulation of mastering musical instruments plays directly to the fantasies of many people. Through Rock Band, players can experience this on a fantasy level without having to master the skills. This raises many questions to our society about how technology might be discouraging people to learn how to play musical instruments, as well as learn other skills that have detailed simulations.
Works Cited
MTV Games. Rock Band for Xbox 360. New York, NY. 2007.
“Rock Band.” Gamerankings. http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/938870.asp. January 2008. May 11, 2008.
5.16.2008
Officiating as play? A personal reflection
The “formal characteristics of play” are nicely summed up in Johan Huizinga’s Homo Ludens, with fairly rigid criteria (13). The intramural flag football games that I participate in at night are a prime example of such play. My role in these games, however, despite the usual six hours a week I devote to them, belongs to a grey area of play. I am a paid referee for these games, someone who officiates and interprets the rules of the game to ensure safety and enjoyable play.
My position is loosely analogous to Geoffrey Chaucer’s Host character in The Canterbury Tales, the person who facilitates the game and creates the play environ. My fellow officials and I set up the field before every game, unlock all the doors to the field, and assign equipment and field positions to the teams. The scoring, the timing, and penalties are all enforced and carried out by either my fellow officials or me. My involvement in the game is crucial to the game and the players’ play. As often times when observing the scrimmages that occur after a forfeited game, which I am barred from officiating, the play reality of the football game deteriorates into real life verbal arguments about ball positions and score attempts. Was that a touch down? Didn’t the quarterback fumble the ball on the snap? Both are questions that have been asked of me, players pleading arbitration, despite the fact that I had already stated that I was not required to offer my opinion. A fluid play-space or reality is hard to come by without the proper referees, especially when it comes to flag football. Perspectives and the angle of views necessary to properly enforce the rules are impossible to standardize without a third objective party.
Referees are crucial to the play of players, crucial to the creation of the play environment of the football game. Is the act of officiating itself necessarily play though? It certainly is confined in the same physical space and reality as the players of the game are. The referee’s powers also only function within the play-reality; I have yet to successfully use my yellow flag to eject a student from a lecture hall for snoring near me during a lecture. There is no doubt that the officials must also follow the same rules of the game, despite a certain authority of interpretation, a referee cannot go against the rules written out in the rule book. I also regard officiating to be a free activity. Yes there is a paycheck every month, but with at most six working hours a week, officiating is hardly a source of disposable income to depend on. The money is more of a compensation for spending the time, not participating in the game in a more exciting and exhilarating role. With the issue of material gain partially put to rest, can officiating now be regarded as play? Asking a fellow referee for his opinion, he stated that money definitely was not an issue for him; he was doing it strictly “for fun”, to be able to “throw some flags and call some penalties”. Such an attitude indeed can be identified as play, as it takes my own thoughts to the next level, ignoring monetary compensation completely. However, even if it can be identified as play, can it be regarded as officiating anymore? Indeed, upon asking other referees who had worked with him, they said he was a bit too “flag-happy” and made the games unnecessarily long. This reduces the amount of playtime the players may play, despite completely being within the rules governing officiating. Another instance of such an overbalance of play-attitude is when officials, myself included, opt to officiate games that we know to be more exciting and spectacular. Such actions though, are always preceded by a caveat from the supervisor to not “watch the game” but instead “officiate the game”. Here there is a clear distinction between play as a spectator, watching the game, and watching for rule infractions and ball positions.
Certainly, there can be a play element in officiating, but then again, any activity can be turned to play. It is just a matter of whether or not the activity remains the activity upon adulterating it with a play attitude. In order to achieve the purest form of officiating, I believe all traces of play must be eliminated from the actions of the official. But as it is impossible for the human mind to do so when engaged in an activity with so many lures of play, a pure official is not possible. Thus theoretically officiating should not be play if done properly, but in reality officiating will always have the play elements and will always be to a degree, play for the official. It is now simply a matter of deciding which to set as the definition and answer, the theoretically possible but realistically impossible or the true reality of the matter. Of course, play must be separate from reality, and therein lies the paradox.
My position is loosely analogous to Geoffrey Chaucer’s Host character in The Canterbury Tales, the person who facilitates the game and creates the play environ. My fellow officials and I set up the field before every game, unlock all the doors to the field, and assign equipment and field positions to the teams. The scoring, the timing, and penalties are all enforced and carried out by either my fellow officials or me. My involvement in the game is crucial to the game and the players’ play. As often times when observing the scrimmages that occur after a forfeited game, which I am barred from officiating, the play reality of the football game deteriorates into real life verbal arguments about ball positions and score attempts. Was that a touch down? Didn’t the quarterback fumble the ball on the snap? Both are questions that have been asked of me, players pleading arbitration, despite the fact that I had already stated that I was not required to offer my opinion. A fluid play-space or reality is hard to come by without the proper referees, especially when it comes to flag football. Perspectives and the angle of views necessary to properly enforce the rules are impossible to standardize without a third objective party.
Referees are crucial to the play of players, crucial to the creation of the play environment of the football game. Is the act of officiating itself necessarily play though? It certainly is confined in the same physical space and reality as the players of the game are. The referee’s powers also only function within the play-reality; I have yet to successfully use my yellow flag to eject a student from a lecture hall for snoring near me during a lecture. There is no doubt that the officials must also follow the same rules of the game, despite a certain authority of interpretation, a referee cannot go against the rules written out in the rule book. I also regard officiating to be a free activity. Yes there is a paycheck every month, but with at most six working hours a week, officiating is hardly a source of disposable income to depend on. The money is more of a compensation for spending the time, not participating in the game in a more exciting and exhilarating role. With the issue of material gain partially put to rest, can officiating now be regarded as play? Asking a fellow referee for his opinion, he stated that money definitely was not an issue for him; he was doing it strictly “for fun”, to be able to “throw some flags and call some penalties”. Such an attitude indeed can be identified as play, as it takes my own thoughts to the next level, ignoring monetary compensation completely. However, even if it can be identified as play, can it be regarded as officiating anymore? Indeed, upon asking other referees who had worked with him, they said he was a bit too “flag-happy” and made the games unnecessarily long. This reduces the amount of playtime the players may play, despite completely being within the rules governing officiating. Another instance of such an overbalance of play-attitude is when officials, myself included, opt to officiate games that we know to be more exciting and spectacular. Such actions though, are always preceded by a caveat from the supervisor to not “watch the game” but instead “officiate the game”. Here there is a clear distinction between play as a spectator, watching the game, and watching for rule infractions and ball positions.
Certainly, there can be a play element in officiating, but then again, any activity can be turned to play. It is just a matter of whether or not the activity remains the activity upon adulterating it with a play attitude. In order to achieve the purest form of officiating, I believe all traces of play must be eliminated from the actions of the official. But as it is impossible for the human mind to do so when engaged in an activity with so many lures of play, a pure official is not possible. Thus theoretically officiating should not be play if done properly, but in reality officiating will always have the play elements and will always be to a degree, play for the official. It is now simply a matter of deciding which to set as the definition and answer, the theoretically possible but realistically impossible or the true reality of the matter. Of course, play must be separate from reality, and therein lies the paradox.
Sacrifice in Water Polo: What Stories an Individual Game Tells
To the outside observer the premier league game I participated in two weeks ago was just a standard water polo game and the only story told was that of the actual game. One team won by six goals and the various individual statistics tell the story of what happened in the game, but on a much deeper level they tell the stories of the players lives. For example in the 3rd quarter one player had two goals on consecutive counter attacks, to the outside observer this may be nothing more than an exciting moment in the game but to that player and his teammates, they know that for the entire semester they have been up at 5:45 am every single day and doing brutal swim sets and scrimmages so they can be faster and more conditioned than the other teams, and when that player scored those two goals he knew that all of his sacrifice was paying off and it had been worth it. It is moments like this in a game where all of a player’s doubts of whether or not all the sacrifice was worth it are erased, they may come back after the game but at that one perfect moment of ultimate success it is all worth it and that is what motivates the player to keep conditioning and breaking themselves down year after year, because they want to reach that moment of glory again. It’s almost an addiction, to the player at the collegiate and international level, the game is not played just for fun anymore, in fact for most they don’t consider it fun at all. This raises the question if all these players aren’t having fun then why are they still playing, the answer is that they can’t find the moment of true satisfaction anywhere else and to them there is nothing more sweet than to know you outworked and are more talented than the opposition. It is a sort of validation for the lifestyle of the high level athlete, and it makes everything else bad in that person’s life go away.
In reality every player knows that glory is fleeting and soon he will be standing on the deck again before the sun has risen while the rest of the world comfortably sleeps and he will again wonder if its all worth it and how nice it would be just to be a normal college student. But then they remember the glory and they know that most of those other people will never even know the feeling of having true validation for your life happen in one moment, let alone attain it.
So, two simple counter attack goals in a low key weekend premier league game may mean nothing to anyone but the individual who scored them, and over time those goals will start to run together with other goals in the individuals mind and lose meaning. But until the next moment of glory those are what keep the player going, and keep him from giving up. Everyone knows that they can’t play forever, sooner or later your body will finally give out for good or you just won’t be good enough to reach the next level, but in order to avoid giving up your life and your dreams prematurely, you need hope. Hope for me came in the form of those two goals, they kept me going throughout the next week of awful conditioning, when my body told me to quit during practice, I was able to smile and think of the goals in the third quarter of a game that essentially meant nothing and know that I could never quit, not with more goals left to score.
This leads to the question, does this thinking keep people going just at high level sports or is this what keeps people from giving up in life? Is our desire to be the best inherent in all humans, or is this why some people are more successful than others because they have this desire?
In reality every player knows that glory is fleeting and soon he will be standing on the deck again before the sun has risen while the rest of the world comfortably sleeps and he will again wonder if its all worth it and how nice it would be just to be a normal college student. But then they remember the glory and they know that most of those other people will never even know the feeling of having true validation for your life happen in one moment, let alone attain it.
So, two simple counter attack goals in a low key weekend premier league game may mean nothing to anyone but the individual who scored them, and over time those goals will start to run together with other goals in the individuals mind and lose meaning. But until the next moment of glory those are what keep the player going, and keep him from giving up. Everyone knows that they can’t play forever, sooner or later your body will finally give out for good or you just won’t be good enough to reach the next level, but in order to avoid giving up your life and your dreams prematurely, you need hope. Hope for me came in the form of those two goals, they kept me going throughout the next week of awful conditioning, when my body told me to quit during practice, I was able to smile and think of the goals in the third quarter of a game that essentially meant nothing and know that I could never quit, not with more goals left to score.
This leads to the question, does this thinking keep people going just at high level sports or is this what keeps people from giving up in life? Is our desire to be the best inherent in all humans, or is this why some people are more successful than others because they have this desire?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)