The tone of this article was highly negative, basically saying that the dynamics of this game are absurd and wondering why anyone in their right mind would play. Like.. the game does not teach one how to play a guitar.. it doesn't have strings or an actual fretboard.. just buttons you press in sync with the music. Also, the article makes a good point by adding: "And there’s no room for genuine creativity, as there would be with a real instrument ... Since the sequence and timing are provided by the game software, you don’t really even need to know the songs. There’s no need to strategize ahead (as in chess); no need for big muscles (as in basketball), and no need to bluff past one’s opponent (as in poker). Few games demand less of the player; I suspect monkeys could be trained to play, and know for a fact that robots can cruise through Guitar Hero on Expert." And that's completely true, the only thing I can get out of the game really is better hand-eye coordination. So why do I continue to play?
Why does anyone play any game? Why do people play Grand Theft Auto, whose main objective is to cause crime. I feel that many people turn to these games for escapism. When I first started to play Guitar Hero, I knew that it wouldn't help me play an actual guitar, but I enjoyed playing the game and I still do. These games help me get a sense of rhythm, and expose me to more music that I wind up downloading. I feel like this article is attacking people who turn Guitar Hero into an obsession, and feel like they're actually playing an instrument, whereas they're just playing a game. The article also discussed how absurd it was to listen to these songs in front of a television where they can get the CD's and listen to them, so I feel like the writer of the article is more conservative and doesn't necessarily realize that our generation will listen to music through any medium, and the gamer generation would love to listen to this music by playing it. Maybe the writer feels like because he grew up listening to this music and is now seeing it tainted through video games, that he is unwilling to accept the new trend. Just an assumption..
The article concludes with this theory, which I'm on the fence with agreeing with: "Games like Guitar Hero set up one of the most potent illusions of temporal contingency I’ve ever seen: if the player presses the button at the right time, the computer plays back a recording of a particular note (or set of notes) played by a professional musician. The music itself is potent and rewarding – Keith Richards really knows how to bend a note -- but the real secret to the game is what happens is that fact if you miss the button, you don’t hear the note. The brain whirrs away, and notices the contingency. When I push the button, I hear Keith Richards; when I fail to push the button (or press the wrong button, or press it late), I don’t hear Keith Richards. Therefore, I am Keith Richards! It’s not simply that you hear the songs (which bring pleasure) but that the game skillfully induces the illusion that you yourself are generating the songs. You aren’t paying $60 to hear the songs; you’re paying $60 to trick your brain into thinking that you are making them. Your conscious mind may know better – and realize that it’s all just a ruse – but your unconscious mind is completely and happily fooled. Is that worth $60? If you want to feel like Keith Richards, the answer is surely yes."
So I don't know.. I think the writer was looking too much into the game. I don't play "Paint it Black" on Guitar Hero thinking "Oh my god! I'm Keith Richards! I'm sitting on my couch playing Guitar Hero on my plastic controller but really I'm a ROCKSTAR!" Na.. I play because it's a game that I enjoy playing: one that combines music with video games. But that's just me.
About a week or more ago, Jackie Castellano & I were in Best Buy, because I had to buy DVD's. While I was shopping, Jackie saw that they were promoting the new Batman: Arkham Asylum game on a flatscreen TV, so shoppers could come up and play the game right by the entrance. The game looked really awesome, and the fact that I love Batman and that whole franchise only got me more interested in the game. The premise of the game, according to the website is: "The inmates of Arkham have been set free - and it's up to Batman to bring order to the chaos and take back the Asylum." While playing, we noticed that the graphics were really impressive, the missions and tasks that needed to be done were interesting and fun, and so on. All around it just seemed like a really cool game, and we were only playing for like a half hour. Well, Jackie was playing; I was watching.
Anyway! While we were playing we started to get harrassed by children -__- First this one kid comes up, and starts pulling the controller cord from Jackie asking, "Can I play now??" And Jackie's trying to be polite and be like, "It's my turn..." Go away kid!! Then as Jackie was fighting the monster, another kid strolled along and was like "Is that the Hulk??" First of all, the monster was pink, not green; not to mention the fact that Marvel & DC Comics are COMPLETELY different companies, go away child, you know nothing. Then he kept telling Jackie that she needed to beat up the Joker, when in the mission she was actually required to save the guards.. Stupid kids. It was so annoying. Jackie and I left Best Buy grumbling about how much we hated children. But that's not really the point of my blog, it's just a funny story.
What I kindof want to know, do those terminals where they put new or popular games on display--do those actually help sales? Or do most people just come in to play them all day then go home? I for one usually don't like to play games in public places like that, with strangers watching me and children harassing me (playing at a friend's house is different). But do people try out a new game they have never heard of and then proceed to buy it from there, or do they play it after hearing about it, and would have bought it regardless of playing it at the store? It's just a thought I had.. But I do enjoy watching people play games in the store and make a fool out of themselves; that gives me amusement. I just wonder if they're necessary, is all
So it's Friday night && I'm lazy and didn't feel like going out. So I stayed home and I figured, what better way to pass the time than to play Super Mario 64, and when I got bored from that, I decided to do some homework; meaning I write a blog about the best video game, imo [in my opinion].
The best video game means different things to different people. To some, it may mean the game that remains a timeless classic through the generations. To some, it may mean the game that encouraged players to expand their mind. To some, it may just mean their personal favorite game and what they spent their paycheck [or their parent's paycheck] on. But to me, that question means the game that had somewhat of an impact on culture and revolutionized the way we play video games. And for me, that's Guitar Hero.
I first played Guitar Hero summer of 2005, and I was at a friend's house and her and her little brother were playing Guitar Hero. Some songs that I liked were on the list so I wanted to try to play. And it was really confusing at first [of course, on easy]. I've never even really played a real guitar before, so having to strum while holding down the colored buttons was confusing and hard to coordinate [and I would like to think I'm good at multitasking]. But shortly after, I went out and bought Guitar Hero I and the "guitar" and played it. And I didn't really have a life during that time, so playing Guitar Hero took most of my time. I was determined to be good, and be able to play my friends who were already on the medium level (I couldn't imagine using the weak pinky to hold down a note; let alone move my hand around for the hard & expert levels). So when I felt like playing, I would play each song, on easy, until I got five stars. And when I did that, I played all the songs again on medium until I got five stars. Then I played them all on hard and only got five stars on the songs that I really liked and could truly tolerate listening to several times in a row. And I believe around this time Guitar Hero II came out, which just meant extra practice for me and exposure to more really good songs that I never heard of [thanks to this game, among my all-time favorite songs are: More than a Feeling (Boston), Infected (Bad Religion), Can't You Hear Me Knockin' (Rolling Stones), Crazy on You (Heart), and Welcome Home (Coheed & Cambria) -- songs that I will have probably heard at some point in my life, but playing these songs over and over again caused me to love them]. After I would play all those songs on Hard and some even on expert, Guitar Hero III came out and even though I didn't own that game, I was always able to play it with a friend, and at this point I was better than most people I played against, even though I wasn't that great. Over the past few years, I got to play Rockband (I'm OK at vocals, atrocious on drums, and pretty good at bass), and the several other Guitar Hero released--except Beatles Rockband -_- .. Looking back, this game provided me with better hand-eye coordination, better appreciation for music, and my inability to play an actual instrument.
Now, here's my problem with the game.
When I would first explain the game to people and how great it was, I basically described it as "DDR but with a Guitar", meaning that like in DDR, when the player is "dancing", for Guitar Hero, the player is "playing the guitar". But they really aren't. It's just a game. But people sometimes take this really seriously, and become determined to beat "Through the Fire & Flames" on expert.
Like, is this what our society has come to-where kids just sit at home and instead of actually picking up a guitar and jamming with friends, they pick up a controller and sit on the couch while the virtual crowd rocks out to the gamer "playing"? At a show, if they guitarist is sucking and about to be booed offstage, they cannot use "starpower" to win the crowd back. It doesn't happen. I ask people all the time if they can actually play a guitar, after I see them five-star a song on expert. More than half the time the answer is no (myself included.)
I really think South Park addressed the issue perfectly. Critics can say whatever they want about the show; it's crude and they constantly cross the line, but they usually make a point in doing so. Such is the case for "Guitar Queer-O".
So not only does this episode discuss the difference in generations, but makes an excellent points. The kids are not playing the Guitar, it really isn't that impressive. They're playing a video game. It's great the video games have advanced so much over the years so that kids can pick up a video game controller shaped like a Guitar, but it isn't the real thing.
So who's the real winner? Who truly deserved the five stars? The original creators of the concept; for currently being billionaires while I went broke for buying the game and console.
But I can't deny that this is the best game ever, because it completely revolutionized the way our generation looks at music & video games. Maybe the conglomeration of the two will be good in the future; maybe it will be the end of actual musicians existing. Who knows.
So after the summer off, I'm back to blogging, many thanks to my class Video Games & Gaming for requiring motivating me to get back to it. I was gonna blog about media stuff I did over the summer but just never had the time to, unfortunately.
This blog is going to focus on Video Gaming, what games I play, what games I don't play; what games I love, what games I hate; what games other people play; what games have affected other forms of media, and so on. I have some ideas but I'll basically be writing about whatever topic related to video games that I feel like.
So let's see. I don't consider myself a serious gamer. When I have extra time or money, I'll usually immerse myself in some other form of media, like watching a movie or TV or reading or something like that. But when I'm in the mood to just relax and not think too much, I play video games. I'm gonna try to think back at what video games I remember that I have played over the years:
-Tetris; Gameboy
-Sonic the Hedgehog: Sega Genesis
-Aladdin: Sega Genesis
-Harry Potter 1, 2: Gameboy Color
-Pokemon Blue, Red, Yellow: Gameboy Color
-Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Time, Oracle of Ages: Gameboy Advance
-Super Mario 64: Nintendo 64
-Mario Kart: Nintendo 64, Wii
-Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time: Nintendo 64
-Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask: Nintendo 64
-Mortal Kombat: Nintendo 64, PS2
-Super Smash Brothers: Nintendo 64
-Pokemon Snap: Nintendo 64
-Sonic Adventure 2: GameCube
-Dance Dance Revolution: PS2
-Guitar Hero 1, 2, 3: PS2
-Kingdom Hearts 1, 2: PS2
-Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
-Rockband: xBox
-Wii Sports: Wii
-Wii Fit: Wii
-The Sims: PC
-and millions of others on the computer from websites. Mostly:
-Pogo: Poppit, Scrabble, Mahjong Safari, Word Whomp
So those are the games that I remember playing and the ones that I have played the most. See, I told you that I'm not a serious gamer; I play certain games religiously but I don't buy too much into the franchise. Future blogs may focus on some of these specifically. But I hope you enjoy my blog on Video Games for Fall 2009.
One of the biggest culture phenomenons for the millennial generation was, and still is, the Harry Potter series, hands down. Those who refused to read them at first, myself included, was most likely at some midnight release party at a Barnes and Noble for the newer books. Those who find the books childish and immature most likely only read the first two and never saw how the last books have progressed tremendously and the plot lines have become both relate-able and insightful. Those who ban the book for discussion of witchcraft obviously don't know the meaning of the word, fiction. For me, the Harry Potter books have inspired me to write and read again, while the movies have inspired me to make better movies, although the last two ones make me wonder if I would be able to one day.
I recently saw the trailer for the sixth movie and I am beyond excited. I haven't been able to reread the series since the release of the seventh book in summer 2007, but seeing this movie makes me want to read them again. I was discussing with Chris how the movies in addition to the books definitely progressed over time. The movies are different because different directors worked on the films, and movie buffs like Chris and myself can clearly see a different mood for each of them. In preparation for the sixth movie, I decided to go back and watch the trailers and compare all the different elements of each of them.
You can definitely notice the brightness of this film. A lot of scenes were shot outside, and I don't think there was one rainy day, except the scene where Harry finds out he's a wizard. And why should it be dark? Little eleven year old Harry is a wizard, going through trivial problems like fighting the school bully and facing three-headed dogs, not a big deal. Compared to the others, this film tries desperately to be dark and suspenseful but fails; but it does not mean it's a bad movie. The same thing happened in the book. But these are necessary in order to set up for future installments. Also, this movie (especially the preview) contains a lot of fluff from the books that future directors abandon (flying, Quidditch, the moving staircases, the Fat Lady portrait, and so on). Just goes to show how cute and innocent this movie is so that they can afford to put in the fluff, whereas future films have much better plot lines to worry about. Also, for being eleven year olds, or however old the kids are, they aren't horrible actors, but you will definitely be able to see a progression. I remember some scenes are awkward because they're still so young, but I am not one to talk. I'm almost nineteen and I'm a worse actor than the three kids put together. The last line suggests foreshadowing, 100%: "I think it is clear that we can expect great things from you". When this movie was made, only the first three books were released, so audiences had no idea of the stuff Harry would go through in future books. Which also makes me wonder, what would the films have been like if they waited until the last book was released? How different would the script be, since the screenplay writers would know how the series ended and could include more instances of foreshadowing and leave out other parts. Just a thought.
Now, this suggested a trend where the films would be released once a year, to reflect that the books are one year apart from each other. Back then, I was happy that the second movie came out so soon, but now I realize it's worth the wait. I realize now how much time movies take to make, especially in-depth movies like the later installments. 'Cause let's face it, the first two books were good for setting up the material and the deeper plots for future books, they weren't good for that much else. They only needed a year to make. Except they should have spend more time on the Whomping Willow scene, that was disappointing.
Just like with the first one, it relies on the brightness and humor to make the trailer. This and the Sorcerer's Stone are truly children's books, until you get tot he part where a giant snake is in the school's pipes and a dark wizard corrupts and innocent girl and a ghost haunts the bathroom she was killed in. But again, this movie had good foreshawing: "Don't worry, I will be around [to save the day]". This can be applied to every book though. Maybe it's not really foreshaowing since it's common sense that Harry is the hero and will prevail through anything and everything.
Now, why did they keep Snape's line: "Open to page three hundred ninety-four", seems completely irrelevant to me. He has much better lines that could have been used. That bothered me when I first saw it, and it bothers me now. Now, notice the different director. Right away you can see a change, though, with the dark purple clouds around the Warner Brothers Logo. Radcliffe has become slightly more convincing in his deliverance of lines. He hasn't gotten there completely yet, but he's working on it. His "Expecto Patronum" was pretty good though. Also, I actually like the Michael Gambon as Dumbledore as opposed to Richard Harris. I find him more convincing as Dumbledore, but that's just me. There are two trailers that rely on different music. This one has bright, optimisitc music closing it while the other one has a chorus sinigng "Something Wicked This Way Comes". I was annoyed by the song then, and I still am. It helps with the pacing and it technically fits, but I find so stereotypical of witchcraft and I didn't think that Harry Potter series had to include it. For the bright music that was in this trailer, I think it helped the bridge of going from innocent and bright and happy tones of the film to dark and serious and depressing that the next films will bring, just like the third book was the bridge and was my favorite. And of course they had to throw in Hermione punching Malfoy. Everyone was looking forward to that.
Again with the dark Warner Brothers logo! But it worked! First of all, there was still some fluff in this trailer. You would think they learned by now to get rid of the fluff. Like, I find the part of Harry asking Cho to the dance unnecessary for the trailer. Like, I guess it shows Harry's growing up, but we don't need to see that in the trailer that's supposed to get audiences excited for the film. But of course they had to throw in Ron dancing with McGonagall, which drew all teenage girls who have a celebrity crush on Rupert Grint and his cute scenes like that. Also, I just found that their interpretation of Sirius in the fire was weird. It did not say that Sirius was part of the logs and ashes, it said he was part of the fire. That would have been so much cooler. Not to mention the absence of the Quidditch World Cup; major disappointment. But enough with my complaints. There was a lot of stuff that looked really good, like Voldemort's rising, the Dark Mark, the dragon and underwater scenes, and so on. And of course this film built up suspense for the next three films with the final line, "Everything's going to change now, isn't it?" Yes, Hermoine Granger, everything will change.
Welcome back to your appearance in the trailer, Hagrid! We missed you since the first film! Glad to see you've matured since the "I shouldn'ta told ya that" bit. So yes, Hermoine Granger, everything has changed--even the director, and this director will be here until the end. But this director did a damn good job of fulfilling the suspense that the first two movies set up for and the next two led up to. When Cornelius Fudge is like Big Brother, you know these are not just children movies anymore. When I get the chills from seeing Voldemort at the train station, you know this is not just a fanstasy movie. A shorter trailer, TV Spot I guess, had Snape training Harry for Occulens, he says "If Voldemort invades your mind, you would not last two seconds", Harry replies (acting skills have increased) "I'm not weak!", Snape replies, "Then prove it!" Ah, foreshadowing! Most likely unintentional, but I still love it. Also, it's cute that we finally see a kiss in these trailers. I've noticed how in most trailers, there's a shot towards the end with the suspenseful music that the hero hooks up with his girl. And here's Harry, leaning towards Cho to give what looks like is an innocent kiss. It's adorable.
I am so excited. These trailers look so good. They looked so good that I put them both up. The first one that shows how Dumbledore met Tom in the memory was amazing. Extremely well done, especially the tag line "to know the future, return to the past". Nice connection. Now, compare Dumbledore telling Tom that he's a wizard to Hagrid telling Harry that he is a wizard. That shows the difference not only of the hero vs. the villian, but the first movie vs. the sixth movie. I love the juxtaposition though, and I wonder if that was intentional. If it was, kudos. Also, not only was the music perfect with the action, but little ten year old Tom Riddle did an amazing job. Sorry Daniel, Rupert, and Emma, but little Tom Riddle was a better actor than you all put together. And not to mention that crazy cut sequence of Voldemort and Tom Riddle, amazing! Now, this last like, "Did I knwo that I just met the most dangerous dark wizard of all time? No." Epic! Well done, Michael! I do not think Richard Harris could have done that as good. Now for the second one, we are introduced to Slughorn, which was not what I expected when I was reading the books, but we'll see how he does. Ron is once again cute, and his best lines must be included to get his fan club to see the movie. Harry even had a funny line in this preview, where he's all "But I am the chosen one". A few years ago, he was pissed that he was the chosen one. But now he's proud of it, cute. So, this transition of the six movies and the four directors was completely necessary, and I feel like the sixth movie is only leading up to the final installment, which will be split up into two movies. I am beyond excited. Now I wanna watch them, and read the books too. If only I had more time..
My name's Lauren. I'm an nineteen year old college student and I'm trying to figure out what I want to do with my life while trying to enjoy life as much as possible. I seem to be doing alright thus far.
There's apparently a lot of criticism about Guitar Hero around..
