Sometimes you stumble upon cool things. No, I don't mean that internet site, just real life stuff. Other times... not so much. I was chilling in the music building when I found a couple of scores that looked interesting. One was a two-part mass. The other caught my attention for the reason of its text: select writings of Thomas Jefferson.
Now, I said, that sounds cool. It'll probably be VERY patriotic and say something about America and freedom. Looking back, I can confidently say I was correct about that guess. In regards to my opener: is this a cool thing or not? In many ways it was.
Starting off the work, is the first movement, entitled "The God who gave us life." The whole of the text is "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." As far as a text, it's not too bad: it's not too long or too wordy. The music lends a contemplative air to it. The song states a fact that the text-writer assumes as a basic truth.
However, getting into the other movements, the text and tone change. The texts for the second and third movements are over two paragraphs long, and the fourth consists of a paragraph and a recapitulation of the first text.
For me, it's not the text length that makes an ill-fit. It's the word choice of Thomas Jefferson. He is an intelligent and erudite man, but his lofty language and multi-syllabic words are not always a good fit for the music. I almost giggled at the line "Our internal resources are great." It just doesn't work for a dramatic text. It sounds like office lingo. I know that it is not, and that the whole of the text is patriotic, but it still feels too wordy.
Another issue I have is the nature of the text. Thomas Jefferson writes lofty words about the nation, but their usage in a dramatic piece like this pushes the patriotism almost into jingo territory. Part of my annoyance is colored by a knowledge of history: I remember the condition of non-WASPs at that time when presented with the words "Our cause is just" or "We cannot endure the infamy and guilt ... which inevitably waits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them." Whatever his intent was in those lines, I can't help what comes to mind. But that's just an issue I'd have to take up with Thomas Jefferson and not the composer, Randall Thompson.
Overall, it's fun to listen to for kicks. However, the text utilized is not quite right for musical setting. Because of the wordiness of the author, the music comes off as stilted at points. However, it would make good listening on the Fourth of July.
AMERICA!
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Psychology - (No) Pun Intended
How many times have you been reading a book, when you come across this apologetic sentence, "No pun intended," usually following some small unintentional play on words? At least a few times. Sales of fireworks have skyrocketed. The price of yeast has risen. The frog croaked. In most serious publications, it is completely unintentional and not intended to be humorous. Or is it?
One important concept in psychology is the idea that the human brain constantly seeks out patterns in the world around it. The cognitive map is a method of organizing the information to which one is exposed. This is used to keep physical surroundings in mind. A similar concept is the schema: this is the organization of new information into the old "database." However, there is another concept which fits best: the preconscious. Unlike the subconscious, preconscious consists of non-repressed memories and information. For instance, if you are writing or talking about different varieties of cheese, you might bring different memories of cheese and cheese-based foods to your preconscious memory. You're not actively thinking about them, but if somebody asks your favorite variety, you'll probably draw the answer from your preconscious store. Or, you might warn somebody about eating a 15 cheese pizza any time soon. The memories and ideas are ready to be accessed, just waiting for you to think about them.
This extends even into word choice for writing. If I were to write an action scene, words like "Bam!" and "Pow!" would enter my preconscious and later conscious mind. Someone with a large vocabulary might recall shorter, sharper words. The question then, is this: are written puns ever unintentional? In most textbooks, the answer is probably yes. However, if your friend "accidentally" uses one, chances are it was completely intentional. Because we seek patterns, we choose words that fit the concepts best (at least, in our own minds). I'm not going to say "Butter salesmen have disseminated themselves across the nation," but "Butter salesman have spread themselves across the nation." The humorous aspect may not be purposeful, but the supposed pun is completely intentional.
I suppose you thought "Oh, he's only going to write in puns" after seeing the title. I'm a-Freud I'm going to have to disappoint you. Writing puns for any field requires more than a working knowledge of id. I'm not plotting a schema to amuse you.
Puns, therefore, derive from our need to connect things mentally. Every pun is intended.
One important concept in psychology is the idea that the human brain constantly seeks out patterns in the world around it. The cognitive map is a method of organizing the information to which one is exposed. This is used to keep physical surroundings in mind. A similar concept is the schema: this is the organization of new information into the old "database." However, there is another concept which fits best: the preconscious. Unlike the subconscious, preconscious consists of non-repressed memories and information. For instance, if you are writing or talking about different varieties of cheese, you might bring different memories of cheese and cheese-based foods to your preconscious memory. You're not actively thinking about them, but if somebody asks your favorite variety, you'll probably draw the answer from your preconscious store. Or, you might warn somebody about eating a 15 cheese pizza any time soon. The memories and ideas are ready to be accessed, just waiting for you to think about them.
This extends even into word choice for writing. If I were to write an action scene, words like "Bam!" and "Pow!" would enter my preconscious and later conscious mind. Someone with a large vocabulary might recall shorter, sharper words. The question then, is this: are written puns ever unintentional? In most textbooks, the answer is probably yes. However, if your friend "accidentally" uses one, chances are it was completely intentional. Because we seek patterns, we choose words that fit the concepts best (at least, in our own minds). I'm not going to say "Butter salesmen have disseminated themselves across the nation," but "Butter salesman have spread themselves across the nation." The humorous aspect may not be purposeful, but the supposed pun is completely intentional.
I suppose you thought "Oh, he's only going to write in puns" after seeing the title. I'm a-Freud I'm going to have to disappoint you. Writing puns for any field requires more than a working knowledge of id. I'm not plotting a schema to amuse you.
Puns, therefore, derive from our need to connect things mentally. Every pun is intended.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Life - Grassy Lawns and Temporary Commuters
Well, today was pretty terrible. (Except the last bit. There was food and Luigi's Mansion for that.)
I've just about reached the point of "Optimal Frustration" with Erskine College's administration. (I'll give the caveat that I could have started my part a little bit sooner.) Because certain funds have not yet arrived, I have not been able to register or acquire room and board. I can't stay in the dorm, as I'm not a registered student. I can't stay in guest rooms, as they would cost more money than I would care to spend. I won't ask to temporarily board with people I know in the area, because that would definitely be a great imposition. After discussing the situation with my Mother, Mother, she offered to help me commute on the days she's not teaching.
Now, she does know a long commute. The school to which she commuted, Southern Wesleyan, is just a little bit closer to us than Clemson. One of the first times we visited the campus (Clemson), someone pointed out the exit sign to SW. The trip down usually lasts around an hour. According to Google Maps, the Erskine trip is longer: however, it feels shorter. Maybe there's more stuff to look at? Or perhaps it's the thrill of playing the "no-speed" game when approaching the oddly spaced speed-limit signs around Due West. Either way, the trip to Erskine is still a bit more fun than the one to Clemson. (That's not saying much. It's still pretty dull.)
So, the sum of all the above is that I might become a temporary, unofficial, quasi-commuter. There's also the potential for a "sleep-over" as she teaches on Tuesday. However, fun aspect aside, I don't really want to commute. My first class is at 10:00, which doesn't seem bad initially. Giving an hour for the journey, and thirty minutes to get there, find a quiet place for Mother to teach Matthew, and for me to get to class, gives us a departure time of 8:30 and a wake-up time of 7:30. In other words, exactly what I was trying to avoid by not taking any early morning classes. But I shouldn't complain: free carpooling is still free carpooling.
And now to the "grass lawns" bit. Before Father left after his lunch break, he uttered that most feared command: "I need you to cut the grass ... at least the front." After putting it off for an hour or two, while dealing with my almost-Optimal Frustration, I finally buckled down and went out.
Long story short, it was terrible. It kept jamming, grass lumps piled up, sweat poured. I won't belly-ache any more than this: when Father returned home from work, he looked at the lawn mower and finished the yard by mowing the dreaded and feared back yard. (It's not really that big, but there's plants and things to navigate around.) He met some yellow jackets along the way. Fortunately, he's made of tougher stuff than I am, so he kept on going until the job was done.
Hopefully, the lawn won't have to be mowed again for a while. (Or at least not while I'm home. :) )
The moral of the story is to mow your loan before it's too tall and apply for lawns early.
I've just about reached the point of "Optimal Frustration" with Erskine College's administration. (I'll give the caveat that I could have started my part a little bit sooner.) Because certain funds have not yet arrived, I have not been able to register or acquire room and board. I can't stay in the dorm, as I'm not a registered student. I can't stay in guest rooms, as they would cost more money than I would care to spend. I won't ask to temporarily board with people I know in the area, because that would definitely be a great imposition. After discussing the situation with my Mother, Mother, she offered to help me commute on the days she's not teaching.
Now, she does know a long commute. The school to which she commuted, Southern Wesleyan, is just a little bit closer to us than Clemson. One of the first times we visited the campus (Clemson), someone pointed out the exit sign to SW. The trip down usually lasts around an hour. According to Google Maps, the Erskine trip is longer: however, it feels shorter. Maybe there's more stuff to look at? Or perhaps it's the thrill of playing the "no-speed" game when approaching the oddly spaced speed-limit signs around Due West. Either way, the trip to Erskine is still a bit more fun than the one to Clemson. (That's not saying much. It's still pretty dull.)
So, the sum of all the above is that I might become a temporary, unofficial, quasi-commuter. There's also the potential for a "sleep-over" as she teaches on Tuesday. However, fun aspect aside, I don't really want to commute. My first class is at 10:00, which doesn't seem bad initially. Giving an hour for the journey, and thirty minutes to get there, find a quiet place for Mother to teach Matthew, and for me to get to class, gives us a departure time of 8:30 and a wake-up time of 7:30. In other words, exactly what I was trying to avoid by not taking any early morning classes. But I shouldn't complain: free carpooling is still free carpooling.
And now to the "grass lawns" bit. Before Father left after his lunch break, he uttered that most feared command: "I need you to cut the grass ... at least the front." After putting it off for an hour or two, while dealing with my almost-Optimal Frustration, I finally buckled down and went out.
Long story short, it was terrible. It kept jamming, grass lumps piled up, sweat poured. I won't belly-ache any more than this: when Father returned home from work, he looked at the lawn mower and finished the yard by mowing the dreaded and feared back yard. (It's not really that big, but there's plants and things to navigate around.) He met some yellow jackets along the way. Fortunately, he's made of tougher stuff than I am, so he kept on going until the job was done.
Hopefully, the lawn won't have to be mowed again for a while. (Or at least not while I'm home. :) )
The moral of the story is to mow your loan before it's too tall and apply for lawns early.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Culture - Television Studies and Me: Can't be a Fan-boy about It
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!
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)