Reading 04

To me, certain video game consoles have a sort of feel to them, which is informed by the specs of a console itself and the special audiences that surround them. Xbox consoles are more geared towards young adults, PlayStation consoles try to sell themselves as serious hardware, and Nintendo consoles go for the family friendly market.

I would believe it would be fairly rare for a console player to choose between a console purely on specs, if even at all looking at the specs. When I was growing up and a lot younger, there would be occasional discussion about the console wars, this was usually between what was superior; Xbox or PlayStation. The people arguing for PlayStation would talk about the consoles overall quality while those on the Xbox side might talk about its games or some ‘otherly’ aspect of the console. The handheld games were their own topic of discussion, and it was universally agreed that Nintendo’s where the best, if there was any possible competitor. From those that I knew, if a person was serious enough about having a console then they would probably also have a handheld. Most console gamers tried to keep PC games out of the discussion.

Most gaming adults that I am familiar with will have multiple household consoles, because it would allow them to play different games in either the way they want to play them or in the way they were intended to be played. A good example of this are Nintendo game systems, for what they often lack in high spec hardware they makeup for in game quality and overall console reliability. Some gamers may prefer playing older consoles just for the sake of nostalgia.

Going off of the articles, I would say that the superior console series is the PlayStation as far as hardware goes. But, usually an Xbox is cheaper. So if someone just wanted to have a console to play games with out as much consideration for performance an Xbox might be their thing. Usually more sophisticated hardware directly translates to more high end graphics quality and potentially more complex gameplay. For my gaming experience, unique style usually outweighs graphical ability and a game doesn’t need to be so complex as intriguing to keep my attention.

My favorite console was my Nintendo GameCube, it was the first console I’ve ever owned and brought me countless hours of entertainment. Some favorite games on the Nintendo GameCube were Mario Cart, Smash Bros., and Pikmin. I remember quite fondly of playing with my younger brother and sister on the GameCube, whether it was Mario Cart, Smash Bros., or Mario Party. Though we later got a Wii and after which I sort of grew out of consoles in general I will always happily remember my GameCube.

For this week I gave the game Sonic the Hedgehog a try, it was a fun an fast paced game and a little different from what I was used to in a platformer. Supposedly this was done by Sega in order to show off there hardware quality.

Reading 03

Computer gaming and console gaming are overall very similar to one another, they are done on two different machines that function very similarly. The advantage of computer games over console games is that the personal computer is more capable of handling a larger variety of different games and supporting software. The person savvy with a personal computer can not only play a variety of games, but customize a computer to fit their needs with games. A console on the other hand has an advantage in its compactness and ability to be instantly set up and played with the use of a television or monitor. Choosing between using a computer or console to play games is largely dependent on personal preference. When I play games, I usually prefer my personal computer. The main reason for this is because it’s what’s most available to me, in which I would have my personal computer for work anyway. Furthermore, I use a form of software that can be used to transfer games I already own from one computer to another, so I don’t lose my games when I need to update my computer.

A disadvantage I found to consoles is that more often than not, old games from the same company aren’t always backwards compatible with new consoles. The was an issue with early Nintendo system, but not necessarily so now. Furthermore, if someone wanted to keep up with the games a company put out, they would also have to keep up with the current consoles of the company. There is a sort of disadvantage to PC gaming, which is the lack of a plug and play nature that is otherwise present in console games. PC games usually take the extra steps of manipulating software and game environments while consoles games have more tactile and ergonomic setups.

As far as particular games go, I would say that first person and third person games are more better suited for consoles. These types of games are better played with console controllers and large viewing sets, these are more associated with consoles than personal computers. While larger sets and video game controllers can be used with modern PC’s, controllers come and are optimized for consoles. Also, if a first person game is competitive multiplayer, consoles affirm that identical hardware is used by all players involved so that no one player is liable to bog play because of inferior hardware on one side or another.

On the other hand real time strategy, economic games, and other sufficiently complex games are more well suited to PC environments. The main reason for why I think this is because a keyboard environment allows for the huge degree of controls necessary for some of these games. Also because there is a larger variety of personal computers and customizable desktops, the needs for complex games can be scaled with the computer used.

I tried some cool DOS games.

The first one I tried was The Oregon Trail, it’s a really neat resources management and travel game with a brutally punishing system. Decisions have to be made from available options and current resources, there can be unforeseen consequences that impact you in the long run.


The next game I played was Prince of Persia, it was a puzzle platformer but the gameplay was something new to me because I wasn’t as familiar with the sort of discrete and flighty movements that the character was controlled with. Overall it was a really cool and intriguing game, one I am definitely revisiting later.


The last game I played was Wolfenstein 3D, which was one of the few first games that attempted a first person shooter setup. Its not true first person shooter though because lateral character movement is non-existent. It’s really cool none the less and a very interesting piece of game history.


Reading 02

The arcade game is one of the most iconic ideas in game culture, from this period of arcade golden age we saw beloved characters such as Pac-Man and Mario enter the scene, along with grand inspiration for games to come in the future. Arcade games shared a huge part of the 80’s culture, which characterized new ideas and forms of amusement that reflected the fast times. These games can still be enjoyed today in many different forms through emulation and derivative systems. While nostalgia can play a huge role in these games continued appreciation, I would like to make other arguments about their very structure and context that also contributes to their staying power.

The games for one were easy to pick up and hard to master. This was born out of the fact that arcade games had to attract players them a chance, but keep challenging them to come back for more. This made the game structured to posses an apparent easiness to them, but also technically difficult to actually play them. This structure of challenge and frustration made these games very habit forming for players involved. Playing a game like this will imbed the imagery and iconography of the game into the players long term memory. Given that these devices are designed for the enjoyment and entertainment of the player, the emotional context that these memories would be associated with would end up being positive and nostalgic.

Because these games had minimal graphical capabilities, they had to rely on unique and novel forms of gameplay. Many classic action genres emerged from arcades, including platformer, racing, and fighting games. The huge varieties of play mostly functioned to have the games stand out from their competitors, though as time went on more formula based conceptions started to take hold as manufacturing became cheaper and cheaper. These sort of experimental forms of gaming still cause old arcade games to stand out even today, despite their lack of visual sophistication. Even if a particular game design didn’t work at the time, the novelty factor of the arcade game could be enough to make it successful. Even now it can be considered a good game design philosophy to make sure that gameplay remains of central importance to a game, with all other factors either being periphery or functional for gameplay.

There was also an interesting culture and atmosphere associated with arcade in the 80’s. Arcades where softly lit so that play can be focused on the screen, the spaces being dark and labyrinthine with the game machines. This caused all focus to be on gaming and game related socialization. The use of lighting in these darkened spaces added a sort of magic and style to an escapist environment. The use of competitive scoring caused these spaces to develop communities of both casual and hardcore players, with many records being set for classic games in arcades.

The combination of these factors all lead to the memory of these games still being alive today. The understanding of these games in their context helps us appreciate them for what they are and where their from, so that we can still enjoy them today.

Reading 01 Response

The development of video gaming came about from the exploration of electronic and computing technology and the demonstration of its use. The few early noncommercial games are Nimrod and ‘Tennis for Two’ which were played with the bulkier electronics of the time. While Tennis for Two was created using specific electronic configurations, Nimrod was programmed on an early computer. The development of early computing was what all0wed complex systems of rules to be implemented to play games. Only later were games being made to market to a public audience, the introduction of this was first started by the game Computer Space which was the brainchild of Nolan Bushnell. This was adapted from the earlier game Spacewar! built at MIT labs. The game Computer Space was sadly a commercial failure, this was attributed to the games complexity in a market at its infancy. The next iteration was Pong from the same manufacturer, which while simpler became a huge market success due to its playability. Though Computer Space was a commercial failure, its DNA lives on in other games such as Atari’s Asteroids, as referenced in Matt Barton’s article. The stimulation of interest gave video gaming a firm foothold in the entertainment market and spurred innovation for electronic systems of play A big hindrance to early commercial gaming was the ability to fit competent hardware into a commercial product. Often the games used were quite simple by todays standards. The Magnavox Odyssey was one of the first home game consoles and supported multiple games using program chips and surface mounted TV displays, a huge achievement for video gaming.

Early video games were largely limited to either a two dimensional play environment or a none dimensional abstract rendering of am more classic game. The example of Spacewar! had players navigate in two dimensional space, but also had a rap around environment that gave the illusion of navigating the surface of a sphere. Pong also hosted a two dimensional environment, except it was limited to the area of a box court. The early competitive games all required the interaction of two players. These earlier video games share the idea of dedicated hardware as with many modern console games, though for earlier video games this was due to current restraints on flexibility as apposed to an appreciation of optimizing game performance. Many games still today make use of two dimensional space concepts in order to organize play, this is largely due to the ease of which a player can comprehend the structure of a two dimensional movement as apposed to any hardware limitation. Modern games are by and large much more capable of handling demanding game play, this is due to advances in computer technology with system components becoming smaller and more efficient and with computational elements being abstracted so that game designers can be more focus on the actual game construction. This allows for games with three dimensional environments or games that have many operating objects like real time strategy and economic games. This is not to say that earlier games couldn’t be as engaging as modern games, when playing Spacewar! and Pong in class I became very engaged in developing techniques and strategies for playing the game and had a lot of fun watching the tournament play out.

Early games such as Spacewar! and Pong were cabinet based given the size of the hardware used. To this end they were coin operated and placed in public spaces in order to generate revenue for the owner. Arcade cabinets are no longer sold as widely today given the convenience of home consoles and computer games. There are special interest groups that still do play arcade games, but such practice is far and few in between. There are still console games around though with dedicated hardware such as the Play Station and the Xbox, the ancestors to these being the Magnavox Odyssey and early Atari systems. Consoles still keep the minds of gaming enthusiast because it separates the entertainment device from work and business devices. As game systems developed they stopped looking like dedicated electronic systems and started to look more like dedicated computer systems that could extend there range of games and play. Thus leading to the variety of video games we have today, that both learn from their predecessors and improve off them.

Reading 00 Response

Why do people play games? People play games for a variety of reasons: to socialize, for experience challenge, or just out of curiosity and interest. Over all I think people like to play games because its fun and they enjoy it, they don’t participate in a game with the same attitude they may do a chore or engage in a financial overview meeting at work. The primary function of game is to entertain the player, but the way the player finds joy in a game can vary. A player might like to play with others, as a means of spending time with their friends or to make new friends over a nice round of Sorry or Scrabble. Board games or social video games engage and embody special forms of social interaction that can take place while fitting in the medium of the game. It may be that a player enjoys the challenge of a game, and really likes competitive aspects of it. Pitting ones wits and skill against another in a no stakes environment can be a good way for someone to express a competitive ethic. For myself, I find games to be interesting as systems of action. I like looking at and playing with creative and intricate games embodying varieties of action that can be engaged in by the player.

My favorite non-video game growing up was probably Uno. For me it was a classic way to spend time with friends in high school, with my family and siblings, or just anyone for that matter. It was right at my level as far as fun and engagement was concerned. At the time I found the game to be fairly engaging and to be a safe form of group interaction. Pretty much everyone new how to play it so there was rarely a barrier to join and there where often house rules that certain groups would employ for their own purposes. Another game that I hold dear is Monopoly, simply because of the many rainy nights I would have played it with my siblings and family.

I believe the elements of an entertaining non-video game are challenge and amusement. A game needs to add challenge in ways that actively engage players to participate in the game, if a game lacks a certain degree of difficulty then a player might lose interest. On the other hand if a game is too difficult to understand then a player would be less incline to play it due to the comprehension barrier or degree of effort to play a game. Another important factor is amusement, as far as a game is able to amuse a player. I separate amusement from challenge because while challenge emphasizes overcoming, amusement emphasizes surprise and self generating novelty. When playing Settlers of Catan in class, I was surprised and delighted to find that despite my best laid plans and careful development I was overcome by the person who had refused to use their reserves until the very end.  A game that is amusing is capable of surprising the player in unexpected ways, this can help prevent a game from just becoming a purely mechanical exercise if elements of chance and variance are introduced. Amusement can take the form of the unexpected consequences of a game mechanic and the unexpected consequences of a players decision or action. Though, a game that is all amusement and little challenge can also be disinteresting, because such would hardly be a game if there was no working objective for the players.

All games have some sort of aspect of play that ultimately makes then similar in one way or another. Board games and video games can be very similar in terms of playstyle and mechanics. A commonality between board games and video games is their compactness and clear visual components. The main difference between video games and board games is the range of activity and the mediums they work through. The board game necessitates the immediate presence of the players in most examples, making intimate social interaction a necessary element. In video games, the players can be in each others presence but not necessarily, as online video gaming becomes more ubiquitous. A board game usually works within the confines of its physical pieces and the sets that can fit on a coffee table; the games content is generated through the cooperation of the players and their adherence to the games rules. In a video game the content can be generated virtually in any number of different ways, in which the relevant game itself manages player interaction and enforcement of game rules. As we see from Alex Herns article, the difference between a board game and a video game isn’t always so cut and dry, with games borrowing and utilizing any concept that can be synthesized. Board games and video games are only superior and inferior as far as they satisfy what someone looks for in a game. Board games are superior in promoting intimate social interaction and developing management and self regulation skills, while also being heavily limited by their medium. A video can take on many playstyles even to the extent of simulating board games, but can have issues in terms of being isolating.