For the longest time, I've wanted to take certain classes. Mostly, they are classes with specific focuses that are not available at smaller institutions. For example, I saw one class listed that promised a study of the literature of south Asia. Another was the concerted study of animal behaviors and patterns in that behavior. One such variety of classes is in the field of television studies. However, whenever I think about it, I also come up with difficulties. At least, difficulties for me. I don't know quite how to approach it in a scholarly way. (I'd probably learn how by taking one of the classes. However, I do have some ideas about problems I'd need to overcome.)
My first point can be illustrated with Doctor Who. I really like the show. I've assembled costumes and outfits based off the dress of the main character, the Doctor. Take it how you will, but I also willingly suffered through the low seasons of the show. However, most of my discussions about the show go in certain ways: either I talk about costumes, or we discuss our favorite incarnation of the Doctor. Most of the discussions are what I would call "fanboyish." Basically, we discuss details that only the most dedicated fans would know, or even care about.
I recently read a book about Doctor Who, The Greatest Show in the Galaxy, which looked at various aspects of the show. One such thing was how the Doctor related to his different companions. The author noted the Doctor's seeming condescension towards male companions, citing various instance across the span of the show. Such analysis of detail would only engage someone interested in the show, and only if they had the working knowledge to know what was being discussed in the first place.
Also, sometimes discussions require much background knowledge and information. Some episodes make oblique references to other, previous episodes. Others point to obscure aspects of story and plot. This is not a unique problem: even in literary studies, one must be somewhat versed in the culture and history behind a story to fully analyze it. This is particularly true of ancient and medieval literature, so far removed from the modern day. Television, however, largely reflects the worldviews and cultures of contemporary society. It does not take as much study to figure out where a director or script-writer is coming from in terms of intended message or subconscious bias.
Television is contemporary, and this also implicates a few things for its study. For instance, many programs are designed purely for entertainment, and one might ask "How or why should we analyze this? It's just a TV show!" However, it is still worth examining. At college and the university, we constantly seek out new things to partake of and analyze. Naturally, television, with its ability to transmit old and new ideas, should also be studied. I will try not to stray too far into doing television studies, rather than writing about it (One can find articles for that online and in journals.) as I further consider difficulties that face television studies. Stay tuned for the next part!
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Monday, August 12, 2013
Gaming - Sonic Adventure: A Personal Retrospective
The year is ... somewhere between 1998 and 2001. The place is a tiny apartment building. My family had recently acquired a new video game system, (one of the rare times we've gotten a system during its actual run) the Sega Dreamcast.
So naturally, I play the heck out of the demo disc that came with it. Rayman 2 demo? Yes. Tomb Raider? Definitely. Fur Fighters? (If it's the one I remember with the random object throwing and what not) Yes, please! However, one demo stood out in particular for me. That of Sonic Adventure. That demo received many, many breakthroughs.
Fortunately, we purchased several Dreamcast games a bit later, and Sonic Adventure. Was one of them. I couldn't get enough of it. I played it over and over again. Well, not technically... (See, we hadn't gotten memory cards yet, for whatever reason. So I had to restart every time. Naturally, I didn't make much progress, notwithstanding the unskippable cut-scene). Even when I had a memory card, my journey with the game wouldn't end until several years later.
So what is the appeal? Well, I can't speak for the majority of Sonic fans, but I know about me. On a side note, I initially had no idea that there were other Sonic games before this one. I just knew Adventure. (And later Sonic Shuffle, but that nightmare game is neither here nor there.) So I guess this is a disclaimer that all/most of my Sonic experience is interpreted through that game, even if subconsciously.
To the game itself, then! It is a 3D platformer, the first true 3D game that Sega had produced up to that point. The attempt at 3D was a risk, I suppose: however, the bigger risk seems to be the varied styles of play that the characters have. In previous games, play-style was more unified, as the number of playable characters tended to be low. That's not the case in Sonic Adventure. Every one of the six characters accomplishes their goals in different ways. To review the game, I believe each should be discussed in turn:
Sonic
Description: Titular character, and main protagonist. I believe his play-style exemplifies the game as a whole. The basic goal of his levels is to travel from point A to point B (often with a few major changes of scenery and music in-between). Simple, but fun. Being the main character, his story is much longer than the rest of the characters' stories, totaling in at 10 action stages, 2 mini-games and several boss fights. Additionally, the final "character" unlocked after completing the other characters is another outing for Sonic, featuring the final boss fight of the game.
Analysis: His mode is appealing because it continues the speed and platforming action of previous entries in the series. After all, the game is called Sonic Adventure, so it's only natural that the best gameplay comes from his levels. Personally speaking, one of my favorite aspects of the game was a certain boss fight of Sonic's: the Egg Viper. Initially, I simply could not figure it out. I kept dying. After figuring out that I should use homing attack on it, it became very easy and my favorite boss fight. The music was also a drawing point for it, too.
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Tails
Description: Sonic's loyal side-kick. His play style is a variant of Sonic's: get from point A to point B before Sonic (or in his last level, Robotnik.) With one exception, all of Tails' levels are shorter versions of ones traveled in with Sonic. Similarly, only Tails' last boss fight is uniquely his own (Egg Walker, parallel to Sonic's Egg Viper.) It seems like Sonic is condescending to let you win, as one time during my latest run-through (in Casinopolis' sewers) I caught Sonic standing around, waiting for me to catch up.
Analysis: After Sonic, Knuckles, and E-102, probably the last play-style that I actively appreciate. The racing character doesn't go too fast, and speed rings are provided to give you an appreciable advantage. Because the stages were previously seen with Sonic, there is little need for more exploration of the level beyond what is necessary to win. Tails' final boss fight has the same music as Egg Viper, is a little tricky, but doesn't give the same satisfaction that Egg Viper does. His story feels short. (And a theme arises: stories that feel short, even for the stories with annoying play-styles.)
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Knuckles
Description: A friend and rival of the spiny blue dude. In Knuckles' stages, one must locate three pieces of the Master Emerald that are scattered about the play-field. He, Sonic and Tails have a number of boss fights and stages in common: their past history in older games draws them together, even in this iteration. For the most part, his stages are easy to complete in a few short minutes.
Analysis: Even though the Sonic games series was founded on the principle of speed and intense platforming action, I find Knuckles' stages pretty fun. The player is allowed to explore a portion of the gestalt stage in Knuckles' version of that stage, much like a player can explore the adventure field as other characters. Knuckles has one unique boss fight: he battles the newly formed Chaos 2 on the hotel's observation room.
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Amy
Description: Star-crossed fan-girl of the spiny blue dude. As with Tails' play style, Amy must reach point B before Zero catches her. However, there is no friendly rivalry: he is out for blood. Well, bird, but he doesn't care for Amy either. Because she doesn't have Sonic's speed or Knuckles' power, she must evade Zero as best she can. Her play style is annoying, as she can't spin-dash and must constantly avoid attacks by Zero. Fortunately, her story is very short, stage-wise, only having three. Only in the very end does she defeat the annoying Zero and reunite her bird with its family.
Analysis: Annoying. It wouldn't be so bad, if not for two things. First, she is slow physically. Second, if you go back to play the other missions for the levels, Zero somehow returns! Even though you may have already killed him in the final boss fight. (I only did Hot Shelter, so maybe he wasn't in the others? Eh.) It is nice to see him explode, especially after he punches the innocent Flicky (the cute birds from Sonic 3D: The family of birds is of this species.) for no reason. Not my favorite story of the game, but not my least favorite either.
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
E-102 (Beta)
Description: Robotnik robot turned vigilante. He must reach point B, where the goal varies. In later missions, he is after the other E-100 series robots to free the animals trapped within them. He's not fast like Sonic, but he does have something better: a laser guided blaster! Everyone made a big deal about Shadow having guns in his game, but E-102 beat him to the punch with his five stages. (Albeit, only one gun. Still, it's the principle of the matter!)
Analysis: Roll around and blow stuff up. Super fun! Revenge yourself against the evil Dr. Robotnik. Even better! I'm sure they would have gotten dull after a while, but I would have appreciated one or two more of his levels. Also, he was just cool looking. The E-100 is one of the few instances where Robotnik actually had a good design aesthetic. Too bad they all got destroyed...
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Big
Description: Umm... Big cat who lives in the forest with his frog pal. Like Knuckles, he hunts for something. Unfortunately, his something swims. His levels thus bring the oddest play-style for a Sonic game: fishing. Fortunately, there are only four stages and a weird boss-like thing.
Analysis: Uggh! He is one of the reasons I never completed the game when I originally got it. Only during the later run-through was I able to finally get through his short, but annoying, story. I may have enjoyed a stage once or twice, but otherwise disliked them. The action was much slower than the rest of the game, and too dissimilar in style.
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
In the end, 4 (5 maybe) out of 6 of the characters are enjoyable to play as. That's a pretty good ratio, especially considering later Sonic games. However, I see another aspect that I had not noticed before: fun, inconsequential story details. For instance, in the Station Square adventure field, one can follow a story of romance: at the Burger Shop, an NPC female has a major crush on the NPC guy in the burger shop. Over the course of the game, she moves from outside the shop, to inside - too nervous to order - to finally become a co-worker with him, her adoration for him finally known. It has absolutely no effect on any story or gameplay. It's great!
Another one, however, affects the story. The train workers decide that they need to go on strike. This helps point the player to focus on stages and events within whatever adventure field s/he is stuck in at the time. (When I tried to reason out the chronology of events, this is a minor event in most of the characters' stories. Sonic, Tails and Knuckles' stages can be easily reconciled. Others alter the events slightly. Big's involvement with Chaos 6 complicates things a bit.) Anyway. I think there's one or two others (like the explorers in the Mystic Ruins) but these are the ones I noticed the most and really liked.
Still, Sonic Adventure does have its foibles. One are the unskippable cut scenes. During the first play-through, they're OK. But when I'm playing through for the fourth or fifth time, I already know all that stuff. Plus, some of the voice actors (coughamyandbigcough) can get annoying after a while. The camera occasionally misbehaves. However, the controls handle well. It is also cool to learn the story of Knuckles' ancestors and why Chaos is trying to wreck everything. Thus, Sonic Adventure is my favorite Sonic game, and the game to which I return again and again.
So naturally, I play the heck out of the demo disc that came with it. Rayman 2 demo? Yes. Tomb Raider? Definitely. Fur Fighters? (If it's the one I remember with the random object throwing and what not) Yes, please! However, one demo stood out in particular for me. That of Sonic Adventure. That demo received many, many breakthroughs.
Fortunately, we purchased several Dreamcast games a bit later, and Sonic Adventure. Was one of them. I couldn't get enough of it. I played it over and over again. Well, not technically... (See, we hadn't gotten memory cards yet, for whatever reason. So I had to restart every time. Naturally, I didn't make much progress, notwithstanding the unskippable cut-scene). Even when I had a memory card, my journey with the game wouldn't end until several years later.
So what is the appeal? Well, I can't speak for the majority of Sonic fans, but I know about me. On a side note, I initially had no idea that there were other Sonic games before this one. I just knew Adventure. (And later Sonic Shuffle, but that nightmare game is neither here nor there.) So I guess this is a disclaimer that all/most of my Sonic experience is interpreted through that game, even if subconsciously.
To the game itself, then! It is a 3D platformer, the first true 3D game that Sega had produced up to that point. The attempt at 3D was a risk, I suppose: however, the bigger risk seems to be the varied styles of play that the characters have. In previous games, play-style was more unified, as the number of playable characters tended to be low. That's not the case in Sonic Adventure. Every one of the six characters accomplishes their goals in different ways. To review the game, I believe each should be discussed in turn:
Sonic
Description: Titular character, and main protagonist. I believe his play-style exemplifies the game as a whole. The basic goal of his levels is to travel from point A to point B (often with a few major changes of scenery and music in-between). Simple, but fun. Being the main character, his story is much longer than the rest of the characters' stories, totaling in at 10 action stages, 2 mini-games and several boss fights. Additionally, the final "character" unlocked after completing the other characters is another outing for Sonic, featuring the final boss fight of the game.
Analysis: His mode is appealing because it continues the speed and platforming action of previous entries in the series. After all, the game is called Sonic Adventure, so it's only natural that the best gameplay comes from his levels. Personally speaking, one of my favorite aspects of the game was a certain boss fight of Sonic's: the Egg Viper. Initially, I simply could not figure it out. I kept dying. After figuring out that I should use homing attack on it, it became very easy and my favorite boss fight. The music was also a drawing point for it, too.
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Tails
Description: Sonic's loyal side-kick. His play style is a variant of Sonic's: get from point A to point B before Sonic (or in his last level, Robotnik.) With one exception, all of Tails' levels are shorter versions of ones traveled in with Sonic. Similarly, only Tails' last boss fight is uniquely his own (Egg Walker, parallel to Sonic's Egg Viper.) It seems like Sonic is condescending to let you win, as one time during my latest run-through (in Casinopolis' sewers) I caught Sonic standing around, waiting for me to catch up.
Analysis: After Sonic, Knuckles, and E-102, probably the last play-style that I actively appreciate. The racing character doesn't go too fast, and speed rings are provided to give you an appreciable advantage. Because the stages were previously seen with Sonic, there is little need for more exploration of the level beyond what is necessary to win. Tails' final boss fight has the same music as Egg Viper, is a little tricky, but doesn't give the same satisfaction that Egg Viper does. His story feels short. (And a theme arises: stories that feel short, even for the stories with annoying play-styles.)
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Knuckles
Description: A friend and rival of the spiny blue dude. In Knuckles' stages, one must locate three pieces of the Master Emerald that are scattered about the play-field. He, Sonic and Tails have a number of boss fights and stages in common: their past history in older games draws them together, even in this iteration. For the most part, his stages are easy to complete in a few short minutes.
Analysis: Even though the Sonic games series was founded on the principle of speed and intense platforming action, I find Knuckles' stages pretty fun. The player is allowed to explore a portion of the gestalt stage in Knuckles' version of that stage, much like a player can explore the adventure field as other characters. Knuckles has one unique boss fight: he battles the newly formed Chaos 2 on the hotel's observation room.
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Amy
Description: Star-crossed fan-girl of the spiny blue dude. As with Tails' play style, Amy must reach point B before Zero catches her. However, there is no friendly rivalry: he is out for blood. Well, bird, but he doesn't care for Amy either. Because she doesn't have Sonic's speed or Knuckles' power, she must evade Zero as best she can. Her play style is annoying, as she can't spin-dash and must constantly avoid attacks by Zero. Fortunately, her story is very short, stage-wise, only having three. Only in the very end does she defeat the annoying Zero and reunite her bird with its family.
Analysis: Annoying. It wouldn't be so bad, if not for two things. First, she is slow physically. Second, if you go back to play the other missions for the levels, Zero somehow returns! Even though you may have already killed him in the final boss fight. (I only did Hot Shelter, so maybe he wasn't in the others? Eh.) It is nice to see him explode, especially after he punches the innocent Flicky (the cute birds from Sonic 3D: The family of birds is of this species.) for no reason. Not my favorite story of the game, but not my least favorite either.
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
E-102 (Beta)
Description: Robotnik robot turned vigilante. He must reach point B, where the goal varies. In later missions, he is after the other E-100 series robots to free the animals trapped within them. He's not fast like Sonic, but he does have something better: a laser guided blaster! Everyone made a big deal about Shadow having guns in his game, but E-102 beat him to the punch with his five stages. (Albeit, only one gun. Still, it's the principle of the matter!)
Analysis: Roll around and blow stuff up. Super fun! Revenge yourself against the evil Dr. Robotnik. Even better! I'm sure they would have gotten dull after a while, but I would have appreciated one or two more of his levels. Also, he was just cool looking. The E-100 is one of the few instances where Robotnik actually had a good design aesthetic. Too bad they all got destroyed...
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Big
Description: Umm... Big cat who lives in the forest with his frog pal. Like Knuckles, he hunts for something. Unfortunately, his something swims. His levels thus bring the oddest play-style for a Sonic game: fishing. Fortunately, there are only four stages and a weird boss-like thing.
Analysis: Uggh! He is one of the reasons I never completed the game when I originally got it. Only during the later run-through was I able to finally get through his short, but annoying, story. I may have enjoyed a stage once or twice, but otherwise disliked them. The action was much slower than the rest of the game, and too dissimilar in style.
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
In the end, 4 (5 maybe) out of 6 of the characters are enjoyable to play as. That's a pretty good ratio, especially considering later Sonic games. However, I see another aspect that I had not noticed before: fun, inconsequential story details. For instance, in the Station Square adventure field, one can follow a story of romance: at the Burger Shop, an NPC female has a major crush on the NPC guy in the burger shop. Over the course of the game, she moves from outside the shop, to inside - too nervous to order - to finally become a co-worker with him, her adoration for him finally known. It has absolutely no effect on any story or gameplay. It's great!
Another one, however, affects the story. The train workers decide that they need to go on strike. This helps point the player to focus on stages and events within whatever adventure field s/he is stuck in at the time. (When I tried to reason out the chronology of events, this is a minor event in most of the characters' stories. Sonic, Tails and Knuckles' stages can be easily reconciled. Others alter the events slightly. Big's involvement with Chaos 6 complicates things a bit.) Anyway. I think there's one or two others (like the explorers in the Mystic Ruins) but these are the ones I noticed the most and really liked.
Still, Sonic Adventure does have its foibles. One are the unskippable cut scenes. During the first play-through, they're OK. But when I'm playing through for the fourth or fifth time, I already know all that stuff. Plus, some of the voice actors (coughamyandbigcough) can get annoying after a while. The camera occasionally misbehaves. However, the controls handle well. It is also cool to learn the story of Knuckles' ancestors and why Chaos is trying to wreck everything. Thus, Sonic Adventure is my favorite Sonic game, and the game to which I return again and again.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Gaming/Business - How Effective is "Advergaming," Really?
Who doesn't love a good game? Be it video, computer, table-top, sports, or whatever else, we all appreciate being able to destroy our opponents in combat/battle/duel. Video games are able to combine this with story-telling, music and visuals to create an artistic product. This product is also an extremely viable media for business owners.
On a recent YouTube channel binge, I saw a video exploring a certain "advergame" from a few years back, Chex Quest. Naturally, the goal of this product was to sell another product, Chex cereal, and raise brand awareness. This trend of games as advertisement is not new, however. Even the Atari VCS featured a number of these.
The question then rises: how effective are advergames as advertisement? To answer that question, we'll look at a few examples. But first, we need to define what a advergame is exactly, and how it is designed to function.
As with any advertisement, the goal of an advergame is to make a consumer aware of a brand, and possibly cause the person to purchase it. Advergames accomplish this by incorporating elements of the brand in some aspect of the game itself: in Chex Quest, for example, the player controls a character designed to resemble a piece of the titular cereal. (This is getting ahead a little, but it is interesting to point out that the game is a first-person shooter, so the Chex-character is not visible during gameplay.) Other games include virtual brand placement in the play-field of the game.
Another type that I'm aware of is the tie-in website. I'm not sure of the exact name, but these sites are linked to popular children's television series and feature games, character bios, product information, etc... (They also ask kids to get their parent's permission. I wonder if anybody actually does that?). These are especially profitable due to low overhead and relative ease at which simple flash games can be put up.
However, because brand placement is relatively easy to do, we will instead focus on the type of advergame that consists of a game-advertisement.
What was one of the causes of the great video game crash of 1983? A glut of video game software, created to capitalize on what some thought would be a passing fad, almost destroyed the video game industry in its infancy. (Well, maybe it wasn't quite so bad, but it was still pretty bad.) Many companies that had no involvement or relation to gaming tried to cash in. For example, Purina released a game (1983) that features a dog chasing a chuck wagon, to promote their Chuck Wagon brand of dog food. (Aptly titled Chase the Chuck Wagon.)
For a little research I attempted to play an emulated version of the game. Through the second emulator I found, I was able to play a little bit. The controls weren't too bad, and the goal was straightforward. The dog begins at center, and needs to navigate a maze while avoiding a pixelated man and a some sort of small flying object. I found that the man was fairly fast, and I barely made it out of the first level. A second bit began, but I had no idea what was going on. Upon further research, I find that the man is a dog catcher and the second bit was a bonus round.
So, you're playing a dog on a journey to get dog food. How effective was this? If the game is marketing dog food, why is it in a format that dogs cannot interact with? Poor Fido!
But in all seriousness, the question still stands. In answer, I will make a small deduction and assume that the game didn't garner much profit. Most "shovelware" games such as this were cranked out by the dozen, regardless of quality or lack thereof. Additionally, two internet review sites, The Video Game Critic, and Honestgamers rated it fairly poorly, giving it D+ and 1 out of 10, respectively. One common complaint against the game is a lack of depth. A consolation, if it can be called that, is that the game is now relatively rare. However, with the availability of ROMs, I would recommend a retrogamer to go that route instead of purchasing the actual cartridge.
Back to the question at hand: How effective are advergames? In this first case, the answer seems to be "Not very." Yes, the game succeeded in becoming a collector's item, but it failed in its initial goal - and contributed to the factors leading to the NA video game crash of 1983.
One key element for advertisements and games is immersion. The simple, repeating design of Chase the Chuck Wagon does not allow for this. Four repeating maps does not create game-immersion. Also, there is not much as far as brand presence. The game's title is on top, and the brand name of the dog food is at the bottom, in color-changing letters, but still largely ignorable. Thus, Chase the Chuck Wagon fails because it is generic and not immersive.
Do later advergames improve on this model, or do they all stay shovelware garbage? Tune in next (insert lengthy time span here) to find out!
On a recent YouTube channel binge, I saw a video exploring a certain "advergame" from a few years back, Chex Quest. Naturally, the goal of this product was to sell another product, Chex cereal, and raise brand awareness. This trend of games as advertisement is not new, however. Even the Atari VCS featured a number of these.
The question then rises: how effective are advergames as advertisement? To answer that question, we'll look at a few examples. But first, we need to define what a advergame is exactly, and how it is designed to function.
As with any advertisement, the goal of an advergame is to make a consumer aware of a brand, and possibly cause the person to purchase it. Advergames accomplish this by incorporating elements of the brand in some aspect of the game itself: in Chex Quest, for example, the player controls a character designed to resemble a piece of the titular cereal. (This is getting ahead a little, but it is interesting to point out that the game is a first-person shooter, so the Chex-character is not visible during gameplay.) Other games include virtual brand placement in the play-field of the game.
Another type that I'm aware of is the tie-in website. I'm not sure of the exact name, but these sites are linked to popular children's television series and feature games, character bios, product information, etc... (They also ask kids to get their parent's permission. I wonder if anybody actually does that?). These are especially profitable due to low overhead and relative ease at which simple flash games can be put up.
However, because brand placement is relatively easy to do, we will instead focus on the type of advergame that consists of a game-advertisement.
What was one of the causes of the great video game crash of 1983? A glut of video game software, created to capitalize on what some thought would be a passing fad, almost destroyed the video game industry in its infancy. (Well, maybe it wasn't quite so bad, but it was still pretty bad.) Many companies that had no involvement or relation to gaming tried to cash in. For example, Purina released a game (1983) that features a dog chasing a chuck wagon, to promote their Chuck Wagon brand of dog food. (Aptly titled Chase the Chuck Wagon.)
For a little research I attempted to play an emulated version of the game. Through the second emulator I found, I was able to play a little bit. The controls weren't too bad, and the goal was straightforward. The dog begins at center, and needs to navigate a maze while avoiding a pixelated man and a some sort of small flying object. I found that the man was fairly fast, and I barely made it out of the first level. A second bit began, but I had no idea what was going on. Upon further research, I find that the man is a dog catcher and the second bit was a bonus round.
So, you're playing a dog on a journey to get dog food. How effective was this? If the game is marketing dog food, why is it in a format that dogs cannot interact with? Poor Fido!
But in all seriousness, the question still stands. In answer, I will make a small deduction and assume that the game didn't garner much profit. Most "shovelware" games such as this were cranked out by the dozen, regardless of quality or lack thereof. Additionally, two internet review sites, The Video Game Critic, and Honestgamers rated it fairly poorly, giving it D+ and 1 out of 10, respectively. One common complaint against the game is a lack of depth. A consolation, if it can be called that, is that the game is now relatively rare. However, with the availability of ROMs, I would recommend a retrogamer to go that route instead of purchasing the actual cartridge.
Back to the question at hand: How effective are advergames? In this first case, the answer seems to be "Not very." Yes, the game succeeded in becoming a collector's item, but it failed in its initial goal - and contributed to the factors leading to the NA video game crash of 1983.
One key element for advertisements and games is immersion. The simple, repeating design of Chase the Chuck Wagon does not allow for this. Four repeating maps does not create game-immersion. Also, there is not much as far as brand presence. The game's title is on top, and the brand name of the dog food is at the bottom, in color-changing letters, but still largely ignorable. Thus, Chase the Chuck Wagon fails because it is generic and not immersive.
Do later advergames improve on this model, or do they all stay shovelware garbage? Tune in next (insert lengthy time span here) to find out!
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Literature - You Decide!
"You are sitting at the computer. An article link appears on your coolest friend's FB wall."
"If you click it, scroll down and continue"
"If not, continue posting pictures of cats"
Thus would a Choose Your Own Adventure book might begin, if it were about people reading the articles of excellent writers on the internet. These books are interesting in several points, both grammatically (not interesting, I know, but bear with me) and literarily (which is a real word ... I'm pretty sure ... yep!).
There are three grammatical persons in English: first, second and third. Most forms of literature that I am familiar with use the third person (he, she, it, they). Personal accounts, diaries and similar works understandably use first person (I, me, we). With most literature having to do with people or their descriptions of other people, that leaves very little room for second person. For the most part, second person usage outside of instruction manuals seems awkward and presumptive: "You foolishly decided to trample the flower. Thousands of years from now, mutant plant-gerbils will run the plant. I hope you're happy." Well, not exactly like that, but something to that effect.
The point is this: we don't like being told what to do. We like making our own choices. Thus, real life and games allow us to control what happens (At least the latter does, anyway). Literature, on the other hand, is a recounting of things that other people did. First and third person predominate.
Enter the choose your own adventure books (CYOA), a form of interactive fiction, as the genre is also called. Researching this topic gave search results with several articles entitled "Choose Your Own X Adventure," with X being some descriptive adjective or noun. Regardless of the nature of the books themselves, they appear to be widely recognized (Or at least among a smattering of various article writers). After expanding the databases included in the search, I finally found some articles specifically addressing CYOA books.
One comment should be made: CYOA books aren't strictly literature. Yes, they have words, tell stories, and are sometimes artistically meritorious. However, they also rely on the action of the reader. Hence, the grouping under interactive fiction.
In my personal collection, I have a number of these books, mostly from the main Choose Your Own Adventure series, with one from the Time Machine series, Search for Dinosaurs. The latter series features historical settings that both entertain the reader and provide some tidbits of history, archaeology or astronomy. The former series features fictional stories concerning various adventures of the reader. A great deal of the ones I have are set in space or deal with the future and technology. (Also, many of the books have endings that result in your death. I guess that's to increase suspense and provide a result for failure or poor choices, but sometimes it gets annoying. Very few books have all-death-free endings.)
However, there is a natural barrier to the genre in the form of length limit: Edward Packard, the creator of the series, admits that "there is a built-in limitation in interactive fiction," and further discusses publisher requirements for "multi-book contracts whereby the packager agrees to deliver anywhere from 6 to 20 or even more books to be written by various authors, all of whom are required to follow a particular formula ... [to write] a certain number of pages." Despite these limitations, authors have successfully used the genre, and Packard goes on to discuss various examples. Digital books provide more leeway for the authors and provide a logical transition. I also posit that text-based games like Zork and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy also provide an expansive outlet for the genre.
Another issue, at least one I've noticed, is the potential of a narrative-time loop. This possibility exists in book and game form. For instance, in Search for Dinosaurs, the reader may accidentally bump into a fellow time-traveler. One option eventually sends the reader back to the beginning of the quest. By following the same path, you can "meet" him again and again. Games can guard against this by adding other factors, like time limitation, scenarios, moving characters around, and ... "motivations" for keeping going (You are likely to be eaten by a grue.)
The biggest issue I see is characterization. As mentioned by Packard, the author is only given a limited amount of space in which to write the story. After character introductions and pages for endings, there isn't much room for characterization of either the reader-character or the other characters. Also, with the reader being the main character, authors must be wary of how they characterize him or her, or risking alienating the reader. For the most part, the reader-character is amiable, androgynous and interested in whatever the book's topic seems to be. In context of the CYOA, this is acceptable. The reader knows how she feels about herself, and brings her likes and dislikes into the story.
However, in the context of most other literature, the reader-character is flat. Because of the attempt to be apolitical, nonreligious, etc... to focus the reader on the story and interesting facts, the main character goes largely undeveloped and becomes uninteresting from blandness. For instance, whether you agree with Harry Potter, Snape, or James Potter's lifestyles is irrelevant: they all have certain views, they all do certain things and behave in certain ways. Whether we like them or not, they are there. Their strength as characters derives from their potential divisiveness. Before I go to far afield to talk about Snape vs James as the right match for Lily, I will conclude this thought by summary: Divisive characters are more memorable than agreeable or bland ones.
Are CYOA books, then, worth the trouble? Yes. Good entries in the series allow for gameplay, reading and sometimes the satiation of curiosity.
"You have reached the ending of the article. However, there are five vampires surrounding you, and your back is to a thousand-foot cliff. Additionally, a grue looks up at you from a foothold on the ledge. Have fun getting out of this one, hero."
Packard, Edward B. "Interactive Fiction For Children: Boon Or Bane?." School Library Journal 34.(1987): 40-41. Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 20 July 2013.
"If you click it, scroll down and continue"
"If not, continue posting pictures of cats"
Thus would a Choose Your Own Adventure book might begin, if it were about people reading the articles of excellent writers on the internet. These books are interesting in several points, both grammatically (not interesting, I know, but bear with me) and literarily (which is a real word ... I'm pretty sure ... yep!).
There are three grammatical persons in English: first, second and third. Most forms of literature that I am familiar with use the third person (he, she, it, they). Personal accounts, diaries and similar works understandably use first person (I, me, we). With most literature having to do with people or their descriptions of other people, that leaves very little room for second person. For the most part, second person usage outside of instruction manuals seems awkward and presumptive: "You foolishly decided to trample the flower. Thousands of years from now, mutant plant-gerbils will run the plant. I hope you're happy." Well, not exactly like that, but something to that effect.
The point is this: we don't like being told what to do. We like making our own choices. Thus, real life and games allow us to control what happens (At least the latter does, anyway). Literature, on the other hand, is a recounting of things that other people did. First and third person predominate.
Enter the choose your own adventure books (CYOA), a form of interactive fiction, as the genre is also called. Researching this topic gave search results with several articles entitled "Choose Your Own X Adventure," with X being some descriptive adjective or noun. Regardless of the nature of the books themselves, they appear to be widely recognized (Or at least among a smattering of various article writers). After expanding the databases included in the search, I finally found some articles specifically addressing CYOA books.
One comment should be made: CYOA books aren't strictly literature. Yes, they have words, tell stories, and are sometimes artistically meritorious. However, they also rely on the action of the reader. Hence, the grouping under interactive fiction.
In my personal collection, I have a number of these books, mostly from the main Choose Your Own Adventure series, with one from the Time Machine series, Search for Dinosaurs. The latter series features historical settings that both entertain the reader and provide some tidbits of history, archaeology or astronomy. The former series features fictional stories concerning various adventures of the reader. A great deal of the ones I have are set in space or deal with the future and technology. (Also, many of the books have endings that result in your death. I guess that's to increase suspense and provide a result for failure or poor choices, but sometimes it gets annoying. Very few books have all-death-free endings.)
However, there is a natural barrier to the genre in the form of length limit: Edward Packard, the creator of the series, admits that "there is a built-in limitation in interactive fiction," and further discusses publisher requirements for "multi-book contracts whereby the packager agrees to deliver anywhere from 6 to 20 or even more books to be written by various authors, all of whom are required to follow a particular formula ... [to write] a certain number of pages." Despite these limitations, authors have successfully used the genre, and Packard goes on to discuss various examples. Digital books provide more leeway for the authors and provide a logical transition. I also posit that text-based games like Zork and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy also provide an expansive outlet for the genre.
Another issue, at least one I've noticed, is the potential of a narrative-time loop. This possibility exists in book and game form. For instance, in Search for Dinosaurs, the reader may accidentally bump into a fellow time-traveler. One option eventually sends the reader back to the beginning of the quest. By following the same path, you can "meet" him again and again. Games can guard against this by adding other factors, like time limitation, scenarios, moving characters around, and ... "motivations" for keeping going (You are likely to be eaten by a grue.)
The biggest issue I see is characterization. As mentioned by Packard, the author is only given a limited amount of space in which to write the story. After character introductions and pages for endings, there isn't much room for characterization of either the reader-character or the other characters. Also, with the reader being the main character, authors must be wary of how they characterize him or her, or risking alienating the reader. For the most part, the reader-character is amiable, androgynous and interested in whatever the book's topic seems to be. In context of the CYOA, this is acceptable. The reader knows how she feels about herself, and brings her likes and dislikes into the story.
However, in the context of most other literature, the reader-character is flat. Because of the attempt to be apolitical, nonreligious, etc... to focus the reader on the story and interesting facts, the main character goes largely undeveloped and becomes uninteresting from blandness. For instance, whether you agree with Harry Potter, Snape, or James Potter's lifestyles is irrelevant: they all have certain views, they all do certain things and behave in certain ways. Whether we like them or not, they are there. Their strength as characters derives from their potential divisiveness. Before I go to far afield to talk about Snape vs James as the right match for Lily, I will conclude this thought by summary: Divisive characters are more memorable than agreeable or bland ones.
Are CYOA books, then, worth the trouble? Yes. Good entries in the series allow for gameplay, reading and sometimes the satiation of curiosity.
"You have reached the ending of the article. However, there are five vampires surrounding you, and your back is to a thousand-foot cliff. Additionally, a grue looks up at you from a foothold on the ledge. Have fun getting out of this one, hero."
The End
-------------
Works Cited:
Bischoff, David, Doug Henderson, and Alex Niño. Search for Dinosaurs. Toronto: Bantam, 1984. Print.Packard, Edward B. "Interactive Fiction For Children: Boon Or Bane?." School Library Journal 34.(1987): 40-41. Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 20 July 2013.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Event - The Eleven Days of Doctor
Hello all! I know like myself, you are all anticipating the climatic return of Doctor Who in what will no doubt be an epic movie experience. Hopefully, the 50th Anniversary Special will air on BBC America. Whenever that will be, I hope to be ready.
Ready for what, you ask? Good question. As a fan of various franchises, I have often dressed as characters of shows, movies, books, etc... for fun and profit. Doctor Who cosplay appeals to me because some of them are easy to manage with patience and a few trips to Goodwill. I've recently finished what I believe to be an excellent 11th Doctor outfit. So, for a few, I can improvise and pull a few "close enoughs." However, in some cases (i.e. 5th, 6th, 7th) I just can't.
That's where you come in, kind reader. I will need help in two ways: (1) costuming: finding parts for the costumes has been a slow and mostly fruitless process. Sure, I've got a full 11th and a passable 10th, but what about the others? What about fancy 3rd? Stylish and best-dressed 6th? Goofy 4th? Spats and question-mark umbrellas don't grow on tomato vines, you see. So, dear reader, if you see or have something that might fit into a doctor outfit, let me know. I don't usually ask around for stuff, but I think this is important enough to warrant some sad-faced, sincere pleading. You may know of sources or uses of other materials of which I wouldn't necessarily think of doing/applying. (Insert speech about networking and the power of friendship here).
Anyway, there's the other area of help (2) companions. One feature of the programme is the varied number of travelers that accompanied the Doctor. Some were witty. Some were annoying. Some were mechanical talking dogs. All were an essential component of the Doctor's life. Who of you longs for the glory of playing one of the Doctor's valiant companions? Who will answer the call and be the Boy or Girl Who Helped out their Friend in His Quest to Play the Doctor? Who will ignore all the unintended title puns these questions raise? Remember friends: a companion in the TARDIS gets the worm!
Wait, no, that's not right. The early companion doesn't take any wooden nickles! Nope. All's well that is thicker than water! Ahem. Earth idioms aside, please keep this in mind for the upcoming semester. This way, if you want to participate (please please please!) you can contact me and begin searching for costume pieces (For convenience. Unless it was your childhood dream to play a particular companion, I'd rather get as many depicted as possible. And at least one per Doctor. No big deal, really!) With some help, I think we can make this happen.
Brave heart, dear reader.
Xander
Ready for what, you ask? Good question. As a fan of various franchises, I have often dressed as characters of shows, movies, books, etc... for fun and profit. Doctor Who cosplay appeals to me because some of them are easy to manage with patience and a few trips to Goodwill. I've recently finished what I believe to be an excellent 11th Doctor outfit. So, for a few, I can improvise and pull a few "close enoughs." However, in some cases (i.e. 5th, 6th, 7th) I just can't.
That's where you come in, kind reader. I will need help in two ways: (1) costuming: finding parts for the costumes has been a slow and mostly fruitless process. Sure, I've got a full 11th and a passable 10th, but what about the others? What about fancy 3rd? Stylish and best-dressed 6th? Goofy 4th? Spats and question-mark umbrellas don't grow on tomato vines, you see. So, dear reader, if you see or have something that might fit into a doctor outfit, let me know. I don't usually ask around for stuff, but I think this is important enough to warrant some sad-faced, sincere pleading. You may know of sources or uses of other materials of which I wouldn't necessarily think of doing/applying. (Insert speech about networking and the power of friendship here).
Anyway, there's the other area of help (2) companions. One feature of the programme is the varied number of travelers that accompanied the Doctor. Some were witty. Some were annoying. Some were mechanical talking dogs. All were an essential component of the Doctor's life. Who of you longs for the glory of playing one of the Doctor's valiant companions? Who will answer the call and be the Boy or Girl Who Helped out their Friend in His Quest to Play the Doctor? Who will ignore all the unintended title puns these questions raise? Remember friends: a companion in the TARDIS gets the worm!
Wait, no, that's not right. The early companion doesn't take any wooden nickles! Nope. All's well that is thicker than water! Ahem. Earth idioms aside, please keep this in mind for the upcoming semester. This way, if you want to participate (please please please!) you can contact me and begin searching for costume pieces (For convenience. Unless it was your childhood dream to play a particular companion, I'd rather get as many depicted as possible. And at least one per Doctor. No big deal, really!) With some help, I think we can make this happen.
Brave heart, dear reader.
Xander
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Gaming - Portal: Heroes, Villains and In-Between
[Please note: (1) this article will contain spoilers and (2) I have not yet played Half-Life, so I will not address the condition of the world outside the Aperture Laboratories facility.]
Portal is a popular puzzle game created by Valve. I've recently been able to get it, and its immediate sequel. The basic story is that of a trapped test subject in a AI-controlled test facility, attempting to escape. The puzzle game revolves around the use of the iconic portal gun. The story presented within the two games is interesting of itself. One key element is the primary antagonist/temporary ally, GLaDOS.
As with many other instances of science fiction, sentient (or seemingly sentient) computer AIs is a significant element within Portal. GLaDOS, turrets and the various personality cores are all robotic life-forms, of sorts. There's no arguing that GLaDOS and Wheatley, a personality core introduced in Portal 2, have more fleshed out personalities and motives than the rest of the artificial intelligences.
The driving force behind Portal's story line is the plot device of an out-of-control AI bent on some harmful goal. This is a common trope in science fiction, that of an artificial life-form or intelligence going beyond its programming or designs. One need only think of 2001: A Space Odyssey for the most iconic example: HAL 9000. Both are examples of technologically optimistic outlooks on the future of computational technology. As is obvious, AI has not yet advanced quite as far as HAL or GLaDOS.
A point must be made about GLaDOS: part-way through Portal 2, the player learn that she contains the personality of an assistant named Caroline. Thus, she is not strictly an AI because part of her intelligence came from an organic life-form. Most rampant AIs that I am familiar with are those that are strictly artificial, being AIs that somehow receive sentience, either by accident, design or outside forces. GLaDOS, then, is sentient by design, owing to her start as the human Caroline. Nevertheless, in the original Portal, GLaDOS occupies the role of primary antagonist, and nothing more. The sequel, through an interesting plot device, alters her role in the narrative. Through the introduction of another leading character, however, GLaDOS fills another role: unwilling sidekick.
Portal 2 adds a third primary character in the person (errm, robot) of Wheatley, another personality core. Whilst reading up, I found that his role is described as that of a "deuteragonist:" a character who is the second most important in the story. He or she can function as a foil to the protagonist. One source I found mentions that the deuteragonist may switch between aiding and opposing the protagonist. By this definition, both Wheatley and GLaDOS fulfill the role of deuteragonist: While GLaDOS initially opposes you and Wheatley aids your escape, GLaDOS fulfills the antagonist role, and Wheatley the aiding deuteragonist. After replacing GLaDOS with Wheatley as main core controlling the facility, GLaDOS will eventually become a sort of side-kick twinged deuteragonist, while Wheatley becomes a hostile deuteragonist.
Wheatley, unlike GLaDOS, remains a solid deuteragonist throughout the game. In the first half, as he aids your escape attempts, the player comes to appreciate him as a character and companion. When he becomes controlling core of the facility, GLaDOS' body has unforeseen affects on his personality: however, the bumbling idiot side of him still remains. Despite his increase in power and the addition of a malevolent streak, he is still a sympathetic character. In the Developer's Commentary, it is noted that his exile into space with the Space Core was seen as a fitting punishment: not too severe, but not a small slap on the wrist. GLaDOS is also a sympathetic character, but she held her grudge against Chell (the main character and sole remaining human test subject) of her own power, and not because of the corrupting influence of the power of the Aperture facility. True, she is more civil as a potato, this does not change her overall opinion of Chell being "a monster" or stop her from constantly barraging Chell with sarcastic insults. Wheatley, during his time in power, attempts this a few times but is shot down by the much skilled GLaDOS.
Portal and Portal 2 thus exhibit a tripartite structure with its main characters: Chell is the (silent) protagonist; GLaDOS, the antagonist; and Wheatley, the bumbling deuteragonist.
Portal is a popular puzzle game created by Valve. I've recently been able to get it, and its immediate sequel. The basic story is that of a trapped test subject in a AI-controlled test facility, attempting to escape. The puzzle game revolves around the use of the iconic portal gun. The story presented within the two games is interesting of itself. One key element is the primary antagonist/temporary ally, GLaDOS.
As with many other instances of science fiction, sentient (or seemingly sentient) computer AIs is a significant element within Portal. GLaDOS, turrets and the various personality cores are all robotic life-forms, of sorts. There's no arguing that GLaDOS and Wheatley, a personality core introduced in Portal 2, have more fleshed out personalities and motives than the rest of the artificial intelligences.
The driving force behind Portal's story line is the plot device of an out-of-control AI bent on some harmful goal. This is a common trope in science fiction, that of an artificial life-form or intelligence going beyond its programming or designs. One need only think of 2001: A Space Odyssey for the most iconic example: HAL 9000. Both are examples of technologically optimistic outlooks on the future of computational technology. As is obvious, AI has not yet advanced quite as far as HAL or GLaDOS.
A point must be made about GLaDOS: part-way through Portal 2, the player learn that she contains the personality of an assistant named Caroline. Thus, she is not strictly an AI because part of her intelligence came from an organic life-form. Most rampant AIs that I am familiar with are those that are strictly artificial, being AIs that somehow receive sentience, either by accident, design or outside forces. GLaDOS, then, is sentient by design, owing to her start as the human Caroline. Nevertheless, in the original Portal, GLaDOS occupies the role of primary antagonist, and nothing more. The sequel, through an interesting plot device, alters her role in the narrative. Through the introduction of another leading character, however, GLaDOS fills another role: unwilling sidekick.
Portal 2 adds a third primary character in the person (errm, robot) of Wheatley, another personality core. Whilst reading up, I found that his role is described as that of a "deuteragonist:" a character who is the second most important in the story. He or she can function as a foil to the protagonist. One source I found mentions that the deuteragonist may switch between aiding and opposing the protagonist. By this definition, both Wheatley and GLaDOS fulfill the role of deuteragonist: While GLaDOS initially opposes you and Wheatley aids your escape, GLaDOS fulfills the antagonist role, and Wheatley the aiding deuteragonist. After replacing GLaDOS with Wheatley as main core controlling the facility, GLaDOS will eventually become a sort of side-kick twinged deuteragonist, while Wheatley becomes a hostile deuteragonist.
Wheatley, unlike GLaDOS, remains a solid deuteragonist throughout the game. In the first half, as he aids your escape attempts, the player comes to appreciate him as a character and companion. When he becomes controlling core of the facility, GLaDOS' body has unforeseen affects on his personality: however, the bumbling idiot side of him still remains. Despite his increase in power and the addition of a malevolent streak, he is still a sympathetic character. In the Developer's Commentary, it is noted that his exile into space with the Space Core was seen as a fitting punishment: not too severe, but not a small slap on the wrist. GLaDOS is also a sympathetic character, but she held her grudge against Chell (the main character and sole remaining human test subject) of her own power, and not because of the corrupting influence of the power of the Aperture facility. True, she is more civil as a potato, this does not change her overall opinion of Chell being "a monster" or stop her from constantly barraging Chell with sarcastic insults. Wheatley, during his time in power, attempts this a few times but is shot down by the much skilled GLaDOS.
Portal and Portal 2 thus exhibit a tripartite structure with its main characters: Chell is the (silent) protagonist; GLaDOS, the antagonist; and Wheatley, the bumbling deuteragonist.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Acting - Repetition Makes Perfect
As most of you may know, churches around the nation participate in holding a most wonderful children's event: Vacation Bible School. It's a program that consists of skits, lessons, songs and other various activities aimed at attracting children in order to witness to them. One key part of that is the skit. Sometimes it features heavily, other times not at all. At my church, it occurs right before the children split into their age groups for the rest of the activities. Here, the skit plays an important role in the overall VBS and the message.
Originally, I was not going to participate, due to all necessary positions being filled. However, I was later brought on as a minor character - a court magician. (Oh, for clarification: our skit was Moses-leading-the-people-out-of-Egypt themed, so I was Pharaoh's magician.) As was usual with our VBS, it was largely improvised on the spot. Initially, I had mixed feelings. Erskine had an improv group with whom I had rehearsed, but never performed. However, there was a rough outline, and words were to be shown on a screen. Despite this, most of the other characters (notably Moses and Aaron) were completely ad-lib for most of their lines.
This brings up one issue with VBS skits: there is almost no time to familiarize to the character. Understandably, the actors are quite busy with jobs, children and other matters, so extensive rehearsal time is not manageable. Thus, improvised comedy is the best solution. The skit was split, in a manner of speaking, between the comic side of Pharaoh, his servant, magician, and a random Hebrew on one side, and the serious side of Pharaoh, Moses and Aaron on the other. Our comedic leads had strong personalities, so improvising humorous interactions seemed fairly easy for them. I was later informed that my character seemed to be played more straight, to counter the over-the-top humor between Pharaoh and his servant.
On the other hand, familiarity with a character benefits not only improv, but also traditional scripted drama. While rehearsing for Arsenic and Old Lace, our director Mrs. DeVault had us come up with back-stories for our characters, no matter how minor they were (Actually important here, as their were about 14 characters in total). By having a background, we would know to react as the character if someone missed or slightly changed a line. It's also part of acting as a whole: for that short duration on stage, an actor immerses him or herself in the character.
While I had a good time being the magician for our VBS (even getting a brief appearance in a comic relief moment before the final, super-serious skit for the tenth plague) I didn't get the level of immersion that comes with traditional stage roles. These VBS skits occupy a strange place between improv and scripted theatre. One one hand, we can act however the character would, as long as the main point is brought across. Unlike improv, however, we cannot simply "reinvent" a character or completely change to re-liven a slowing skit. Pharaoh must be Pharaoh, Moses must be Moses.
One of my favorite aspects of being immersed in a show, or character, or series, is being able to imagine what a character would or would not do. Some improv skits, such as "blind date" rely on the audience's familiarity with a character and ask them to figure out his or her identity.
Long story short, repetition makes perfect, as the title says. Or, it at least makes performances complete. It's one thing to utilize your own crazy personality to create improvised comedy. It's another thing entirely to create a full character on the stage.
Originally, I was not going to participate, due to all necessary positions being filled. However, I was later brought on as a minor character - a court magician. (Oh, for clarification: our skit was Moses-leading-the-people-out-of-Egypt themed, so I was Pharaoh's magician.) As was usual with our VBS, it was largely improvised on the spot. Initially, I had mixed feelings. Erskine had an improv group with whom I had rehearsed, but never performed. However, there was a rough outline, and words were to be shown on a screen. Despite this, most of the other characters (notably Moses and Aaron) were completely ad-lib for most of their lines.
This brings up one issue with VBS skits: there is almost no time to familiarize to the character. Understandably, the actors are quite busy with jobs, children and other matters, so extensive rehearsal time is not manageable. Thus, improvised comedy is the best solution. The skit was split, in a manner of speaking, between the comic side of Pharaoh, his servant, magician, and a random Hebrew on one side, and the serious side of Pharaoh, Moses and Aaron on the other. Our comedic leads had strong personalities, so improvising humorous interactions seemed fairly easy for them. I was later informed that my character seemed to be played more straight, to counter the over-the-top humor between Pharaoh and his servant.
On the other hand, familiarity with a character benefits not only improv, but also traditional scripted drama. While rehearsing for Arsenic and Old Lace, our director Mrs. DeVault had us come up with back-stories for our characters, no matter how minor they were (Actually important here, as their were about 14 characters in total). By having a background, we would know to react as the character if someone missed or slightly changed a line. It's also part of acting as a whole: for that short duration on stage, an actor immerses him or herself in the character.
While I had a good time being the magician for our VBS (even getting a brief appearance in a comic relief moment before the final, super-serious skit for the tenth plague) I didn't get the level of immersion that comes with traditional stage roles. These VBS skits occupy a strange place between improv and scripted theatre. One one hand, we can act however the character would, as long as the main point is brought across. Unlike improv, however, we cannot simply "reinvent" a character or completely change to re-liven a slowing skit. Pharaoh must be Pharaoh, Moses must be Moses.
One of my favorite aspects of being immersed in a show, or character, or series, is being able to imagine what a character would or would not do. Some improv skits, such as "blind date" rely on the audience's familiarity with a character and ask them to figure out his or her identity.
Long story short, repetition makes perfect, as the title says. Or, it at least makes performances complete. It's one thing to utilize your own crazy personality to create improvised comedy. It's another thing entirely to create a full character on the stage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)