(Begins April 22 - Ends April 29)
Read Ender's Game, Chapters 1 and 2, and respond to these questions:
Chapter 1:
“Ender doodled on his desk, drawing contour maps of mountainous islands and then telling his desk to display them n three dimensions from every angle.” (Card, 4)
1) Considering the quote above, is this a game? Is this play?
2) When the other children bully up on Ender, is this a game? Is this play?
3) What do you think of Ender’s strategy? What is fair play? How do we, as game designers, ensure fair play? Should we?
Chapter 2
“Peter opened his bottom drawer and took out the bugger mask. Mother had got upset at him when Peter bought it, but Dad had pointed out that the war wouldn’t go away just because you hid bugger masks and wouldn’t let your kids play with make-believe laser guns. Better to play the war games, and have a better chance of surviving when the buggers came again.
“If I survive the games, thought Ender.” (Card, 11)
1) What is the relationship between games and reality? Does violence in reality validate violence in games? Under what circumstances is violence in games acceptable? Can games go too far?
2) Who is the “bad guy” in Peter and Ender’s game? Why would you argue this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1-1: i would call this play. but not really a game. it can be argued that seemingly sandbox play is a game because you are constantly trying to acheive a small specific and changing goal. but ender is simply drawing maps. no real goal just to see the map displayed in 3d.
ReplyDelete1-2: it is a game to the boys. a game of dominance. as well as play. not very fun play for the the one gettting bullied though. this is a game where the only goal was to assert dominance.
1-3:ender was completely playing fair. ender is not a bad kid. he doesnt like confrontations like that. he simply did the least amount of damage that he could while still getting a point across. he wasnt wildly attacking stilson he was tactfully bringing down his opponent. as game designers its very important to ensure fair play. if a game is not fair then it becomes unbeatable and thus boring.
2-1:i think that yes everything that exists has a place in videogames. games are fun due to a relatability that the player has with the game. and that comes from the similarities between reality and games. i for one am a supporter of A/O games. i know manhunt had some problems with that and thus the game sucked due to the censorship...... and the horrible story, all too obvious plot twist and bad gimicky wii controls. i think the line might be crossed when in saints row 7 you can kidnap and kill little children. however i would hope that people would understand the difference between being able to save and restart before you die or get arrested and you know... real life. games dont kill people. people kill people.
2-2:the bad guy depends on the point of view. from ender "the buggers" side humans or peter is the enemy. and from peter the humans side, buggers are the enemy.
Chapter 1“Ender doodled on his desk, drawing contour maps of mountainous islands and then telling his desk to display them in three dimensions from every angle.” (Card, 4)
ReplyDelete1) Considering the quote above, is this a game? Is this play?Ender is playing a game only in the sense that his goal is to make the maps and have them displayed. There is no greater goal besides perhaps alleviating boredom. He is, however, playing by engaging in an activity that even slightly amuses him.
2) When the other children bully up on Ender, is this a game? Is this play?The act of bullying is a dark game children play with each other, but with unfair rules. The object of the game, as a bully, is to assert one's physical superiority or dominance by physically and/or mentally humiliating, harming, or scaring the target. The object of the game, as the target, is to escape. The bullies may see the game as a way to play, but the target faces the game in a survivalist view, which often boils down to necessity rather than enjoyment, and is therefor not play.
3) What do you think of Ender’s strategy? What is fair play? How do we, as game designers, ensure fair play? Should we?Ender's strategy was quick, concise, and effective. Since the game of bullying is, by nature, and unfair game, Ender used his intellect and superior tactical knowledge to level the field. Where they had numbers, he had intelligence. Game designers instill rules, obstacles, and specific limits in our games to ensure that game play is fair and non-monotonous. If we did not, we would have a game with far too many options to achieve a goal, which leaves the player feeling unfulfilled since there would be little to no challenge or sense of accomplishment.
Chapter 2“Peter opened his bottom drawer and took out the bugger mask. Mother had got upset at him when Peter bought it, but Dad had pointed out that the war wouldn’t go away just because you hid bugger masks and wouldn’t let your kids play with make-believe laser guns. Better to play the war games, and have a better chance of surviving when the buggers came again.
“If I survive the games, thought Ender.” (Card, 11)
1) What is the relationship between games and reality? Does violence in reality validate violence in games? Under what circumstances is violence in games acceptable? Can games go too far?Games are often based on some aspect of reality, but are designed in such a way as to be apart from reality, typically as an entertaining escape, but also as a safe training area, a non-challenging learning environment, and imaginative other-worlds for the creativity to run wild in. Violence exists, and if you want any degree of reality in your game experience, it will likely include violence. The smallest thing, like a schoolyard brawl or a slap in the face, is violence, and in personal interactions, it happens. For the sake of maintaining a believable story, or personal responses or physical repercussions (explosions are also violent), I believe violence is validated in video games. This is not to say that every moment of game play should be filled with violence. There is always a specific aim for the game, and violence should only be used in accordance to the design goals of the game. If there is no goal for the game that requires violence (Chutes and Ladders works fine without it), then there is no validated need to include it. I find most games handle their included violence in a respectable, believable, and tasteful manner. Even the Grand Theft Auto video games, for the plot, use violence mostly in accordance. Side missions and tally goals, however, encourage the player to do nothing but wreak havoc, which goes a little too far in my opinion. It does nothing for plot or character development and often has nothing to do with story-progression mission goals. Yes, violence is a validated part of video games, but within reason. It shouldn't be used as some sort of criminal training simulation (as Sydney mentions about Saints Row 7, and how GTA simulates massive law-breaking actions).
2) Who is the “bad guy” in Peter and Ender’s game? Why would you argue this?The story is established, even in the first two chapters, to have Ender as the protagonist. As such, the reader is inclined to believe that Peter is an antagonist. Due to the nature of the story, however (where everyone is playing mind games with each other), it is entirely possible that every character is going to be an antagonist (or "bad guys") in some way, so it's hard to say. In the specific Astronauts vs. Buggers game they play, the Buggers (Ender's side) are supposed to represent the bad guys, but Peter's attitude is definitely more suited to that role than Ender's attitude. This relationship will likely be elaborated on and grow in complexity throughout the book.
1-1: Ender's map creation is more play than a game because there aren't any rules to what he creates or a specific goal.
ReplyDelete1-2: When the children bully Ender, it is a game because they have the goal intimidating him and their rules are using whatever means without getting themselves in trouble.
1-3: Ender's strategy is fair play because they are playing the same game with similar rules but with very different goals. Fair play is following rules to accomplish your goal whether it is the same as the opponent's or not. To ensure fair play, game designers limit abilities to make an even challenge for players. It enables all players equal chance to have a good time playing, however if a player is better than another handicaps can be used to challenge them further and even the playing field.
2-1: Games often mimic reality while adding the aspect that would be too dangerous or amplified for a real person. Acceptable amounts of violence depends on how well the player can handle it. Although violence probably shouldn't be encouraged, it is still a part of human nature and can't be avoided.
2-2: In Peter and Ender's game, Peter is the bad guy because he initiates the fight and is the aggressor while Ender only endures the mistreatment.
1-1. To me, the word "doodled" implies a lax manner, indicating that Ender is at play and not considering his actions to be a game.
ReplyDelete1-2. To the bullying children, this is much more a game than real play. It's a very serious game and there is a specific goal in their minds. Though for some children, they may join in the bullying in a much more jocular way, and may possibly be more play for them, but in a way all bullying is a sort of game.
1-3. I understood Ender's strategy and by the way he "explained" it, I agreed with it in a sort of morbid way. Fair play entails trying to ensure that all the players all have an equal chance to win by endowing them with the same assets and rules. As game designers I believe we should ensure fair play, because if a game is not fair, less people are going to want to play it when they have the knowledge that their chance at winning may not even be under their control or skill. We should design games and their rules from as many angles and aspects as possible to make sure that all the players have a fair chance at winning under their own control.
2-1. Games and reality have a close relationship; games are a kind of escape from reality, but reality is also inescapable. In a way, violence in reality can validate violence in videogames, because either way, it's not going to go away. Violence in games, I believe, should be as acceptable as violence in movies. I believe it's up to the individual's personal discretion whether or not to view violent media, as well as the control of parents to filter what they buy for their child or allow them to be subject to.
2-2. I would argue that Peter is the bad guy in Peter and Ender's game, because of his dark intentions in starting that game between them. While Ender might have been wearing the mask of the 'bad guy', Peter is obviously the bad guy between the two boys. The symbolism of the masks adds perspective to the ending of the book.
Chapter 1:
ReplyDelete“Ender doodled on his desk, drawing contour maps of mountainous islands and then telling his desk to display them n three dimensions from every angle.” (Card, 4)
1) Considering the quote above, is this a game? Is this play?
I feel that this is play. Ender is doodling to entertain himself-to stimulate his mind and keep him from getting too caught up in his own world while still paying attention in class.
2) When the other children bully up on Ender, is this a game? Is this play?
I find it to be the bully’s “game” in the beginning. The bully’s crew surrounds Ender and plays the unfair game of bully picking on “bugger”. In the end it turns out to be some form of play because Ender winds up taking the bully’s “game” into his own hands and “entertains” himself by taking the opportunity of beating the bully up showing the others what could happen if they mess with him-even if it wasn’t planned.
3) What do you think of Ender’s strategy? What is fair play? How do we, as game designers, ensure fair play? Should we?
Well I’m sure he never thought of having a strategy in the first place, it was his instincts that pushed him to do the worst. Of course it was fair, it’s the bully and his gang against Ender alone, so to Ender this is fair. As game designers of course we have to ensure fair play in games, if the player always wins they wind up getting bored real quickly. If the opponent/cpu always wins then the player gets frustrated and doesn’t want to play that game ever again. There has to be a good balance between the two, give the player a good challenge and they will continue playing.
Chapter 2
“Peter opened his bottom drawer and took out the bugger mask. Mother had got upset at him when Peter bought it, but Dad had pointed out that the war wouldn’t go away just because you hid bugger masks and wouldn’t let your kids play with make-believe laser guns. Better to play the war games, and have a better chance of surviving when the buggers came again.
“If I survive the games, thought Ender.” (Card, 11)
1) What is the relationship between games and reality?
Games are nice harmony of reality and fantasy meshed into one. If games didn’t have some form of reality to be based upon then it wouldn’t really be anything at all. In reality you can become lost in your own world with imagination while the games solidize your imagination and creativity while still staying close to something familiar.
Does violence in reality validate violence in games?
Yes of course, companies shouldn’t be limited to no violence in their games just because it’s “wrong”. If anything I think it helps, the way I see it, violent games are stress relievers, to some people it’s a good way to take out your frustrations without beating the living pulp out of a real person though for most-non violent games seem to be just fine as well. As long as theres a good balance theres nothing wrong with it.
Under what circumstances is violence in games acceptable?
Well if the game is rated for the appropriate audience then its acceptable, such as rated T for teens or higher. Of course violence shouldn’t be included in something like “My Little Pony” unless its some sick twisted version only meant for adults.
Can games go too far?
Well so far I haven’t played many games that went too far, but I’m sure there are some out there. The one that I can say that comes close is GTO (grand theft auto), that game is just utter chaos. There’s so much freedom with the violence it makes me a little nervous.
2) Who is the “bad guy” in Peter and Ender’s game? Why would you argue this?
So far in the book the buggers are something that people hate so in Peter and Ender’s game, Ender was of course the “bad guy” even though Peter was the one “acting” like it a lot more.
Chapter 1:
ReplyDelete1-1: This is more play than it is a game. Ender is just bored with the monotonous lectures about his multiplication tables he already knows.
So he "doodles" and plays on his desk drawing maps for pure play and amusement; not working within the constraints of rules a game provides.
1-2: To the bullies the confrontation with Ender is simply s a mean game. The bullies taunt and tease him with the name "third". Their rules are to make him feel bad and to ruff him up without endangering their own necks.
1-3: "Ender knew the unspoken rules of manly warfare... it is forbidden to strike the opponent when he lay helpless". In the end ender breaks the bullies rules and refuses to play the teasing game and instead sets up a new game with his own rules. His strategy to end this bullying one and for all is brilliant. Fair play is giving everyone an equal chance (something Ender did not have as it was him VS multiple classmates).
As game designers we ensure fair play by making sure that we do not give an advantage to any one person. If a person receives an advantage it is only by luck and all other players must still be able to receive this advantage by their own luck as well. I believe we should ensure fair play. No one likes to play a game with an over powered adversary. That is not to say that each character in a game cannot have individual strengths and weaknesses BUT in the end they need to level out equality and be bound by a checks and balance system.
Chapter 2:
2-1: Games need some sort of reality. A player needs to have something to relate to in a game. However one of the great things about games is that it can still include alternative realities both worldly and completely alternative fantasy universes. The relationship exists to so that a game can exist in our reality and provide the player with a new one.
I don't like the term validate. Violence exists in our world, like it or not. Games with violence s are just an extension of that one dark part of the human experience. Violent games are in part attempting to understand the hidden motives behind that violence and also trying to express it in a way serves as a release of those feelings; so they DONT happen in the real world.
Violence in games is acceptable for mature audiences and people who are in the right age groups as the games are rated for.
Games can go too far. Recently the game Six Days In Fallujah was banned for being too insensitive and too planned too soon as the Iraq war is still going on. Konami has abandoned further development.
2-2: I would say Ender plays the role of the bad guy as he is a "bugger" but Peter obviously takes it too far; even though he is human he is cruel and merciless with his weaker, smaller younger brother.
Chapter 1:
ReplyDelete“Ender doodled on his desk, drawing contour maps of mountainous islands and then telling his desk to display them in three dimensions from every angle.” (Card, 4)
1) Considering the quote above, is this a game? Is this play?
I believe it is mostly just play, as the word 'doodled' seems to imply a lack of structure or plan. Though, as he continues it if he sets up goals and fleshes out the ideas behind what he's doing in his mind, I think it could be considered a game.
2) When the other children bully up on Ender, is this a game? Is this play?
I believe this is a game for the bullies, but certainly not for Ender. The bullies probably are not determined to ruin Ender's life, or severely injure him, so I feel there are no truly serious intentions behind their bullying. It is just a way to have fun for them, to play. Their goal is to make Ender scared, to make Ender feel bad, these are the goal's of their 'game'. They continue to just play by pushing him back and forth, as if it were a game like tennis. Ender, however, does not feel it is a game, and takes the situation very seriously, as is proven by his actions that ended the bully's fun.
3) What do you think of Ender’s strategy? What is fair play? How do we, as game designers, ensure fair play? Should we?
Ender's strategy is certainly effective in achieving his goal, that is to ensure the bullies won't bother him again. However, it certainly is not fair, and Ender knows this.. breaking the 'rules' and behaving animalistic in combat by kicking someone while they're down is meant to be unfair, and it is this unfairness that put Ender at the advantage over a group of bigger kids. It is worth noting though, that by ganging up on him I believe the bullies broke any form of fairness, and so Ender's actions may be justified in that.
Fair play can be ensured by not stacking the odds too high against a player, not simply trying to make a player lose. A fair game is one that guide's you toward fun, and success, so to ensure a fair game these things must be accomplishable. If a game has multiple players, a fair game would ensure none of them have an advantage over the other.
I believe fair and balanced gameplay is a must in all games, but deviations from fairness can be acceptable I think. For example, if for certain levels or when dealing with certain enemies in a game, if the enemies or environment defies 'fairness' by being exceptionally more difficult than they should be, or by being complex to the point of frustration, it could still be fun for the player, it may even add a new level of excitement. The frustration may add determination, and when the player his/her goals and defeats the unfair aspects of a game, it may add a greater sense of accomplishment. That is where the key lies, though, you do not want a player to remain frustrated too long, and even if it is unfair, the goal's of the game MUST remain accomplishable.
Chapter 2
“Peter opened his bottom drawer and took out the bugger mask. Mother had got upset at him when Peter bought it, but Dad had pointed out that the war wouldn’t go away just because you hid bugger masks and wouldn’t let your kids play with make-believe laser guns. Better to play the war games, and have a better chance of surviving when the buggers came again.
“If I survive the games, thought Ender.” (Card, 11)
1) What is the relationship between games and reality? Does violence in reality validate violence in games? Under what circumstances is violence in games acceptable? Can games go too far?
Games are based on reality, their goals, rules, and possibilities draw from the fundaments of reality, nothing is birthed without some inspiration (games are a part of reality, after all.) But given that games draw so heavily from reality, they are usually meant as a means to escape it, to give a mental diversion or at least some fun for a period of time. The game/reality relationship goes full-circle though, as the potential problem-solving skills, teamwork experience, and other things learned while diverting from reality by playing games, can be applied elsewhere in reality. So, in conclusion, even though my perceived goal of games is typically to divert from reality, reality is what supports games, and games often lend their support to reality as well.
I don't know if I ever feel that violence is 'valid' so I might say no. Then again, there is no getting rid of the violent instinct of humans, and I don't feel the violence found in either reality or games really validate eachother, but instead simply exist. It's a tough question to answer, i seem to go back and forth on this a lot myself. Violence does exist in reality, in fact it's hard to think of any great achievements in the history of humanity that aren't some how accompanied (or possible of being related to) by violence. And because games draw so heavily on reality, of course violence is going to appear in games as well.. if that would be considered validation, then yes.
I believe violence in games ia lmost always acceptable. It's a fact of life, for one thing, and even games that depict violence against other humans, in situations that constitute murder or other unlawful acts are appropriate, I think. The main reason I think that is because a game can act as a psychological release, perhaps if you let out rage by role-playing as a murderer for awhile in a game, you would be less prone to commit such violent acts in reality. I think that the fact that violent crimes have been on a downward curve ever since the mid-80's (which was a spike in videogame popularity) supports my theories on this.
I think games can go too far, though. There are games out there such as America's Army, that are intended to train players into being interested in joining the army - clearly - and I don't have much of a problem with that, but there are games out there that aren't advertising themselves so clearly, and that may be subconsciously training the players to hate, or want to commit violent acts. It's hard to pinpoint any certain example of this, and each player's reaction to a game will be different, but I do believe games exist that are like this. So, yes, games can go too far when it comes to violence.. to train violence in a way that is intended to be performed in reality through a game, or to train hate, is going too far.
2) Who is the “bad guy” in Peter and Ender’s game? Why would you argue this?
As far as the game itself goes, the 'buggers' are certainly intended as the bad guy, and the 'astronaut' the good guy, as it seems they are based on real events, in which humans must have triumphed over some sort of enemy. Humans are likely to identify with their own species rather than another, making them the good guys. But, as told in the novel, from Ender's perspective, it is quite clear the bad guy in this situation is actually Peter. What makes Peter the bad guy, though, are his intended actions of violence outside the boundries of the game, so I still do not feel that he is the bad guy within the confines of the game.
1-1: Since it was just him doodling on his own time to himself, it's just playing. Though to me, it didn't seem like either.
ReplyDelete1-2: It seems like a game to the children. Their goal being to either scare or harm Ender.
1-3: His strategy wasn't fair, but it was brilliant. Besides, the children were already being unfair by ganging up on him. Fair play should be considered for game design and to ensure it provide clear rules (if it's a game where there is no referee). If a referee is present it is his/her job to ensure fair play.
2-1: They're playing games based off reality. Like how children play "cops and robbers" and "cowboys and indians".
I wouldn't say it validates violence in games, but reality is what fuels our imaginations or inspires us. I don't think violence in games is a bad thing because not everyone in the world can't see the difference between reality and fantasy, but games where violence in it can be helpful would be simulations for battle (like for the military). However, a game meant for fun and entertainment available to everyone showing violence against innocent people or certain races or genders is too far.
2-2: It depends. If referring to the actual game Ender is the technical bad guy. If referring to the situation, Peter is obviously the bad guy.
ch.1
ReplyDelete-1 This would be more play than game. No rules just doing it.
-2 I would say they're playing a game. It may start as play when they taunting Ender but once they start pushing him around that's when their game starts.
- I would saying he's allowed to fight dirty if he is being ganged up by all of them. Unless it's a rumble then fair play should be one on one. Well there's got to be rules in order to ensure fair gameplay between the players. I do think the game has to have little unfairness in order for it to be challenging but it has to be balanced.
Ch. 2
-1 A lot of games, especially video games are becoming more realistic. There are games that people play in real life like role playing.
-2 I think violence in reality makes violence in games. Depends on who is playing the game. Ratings are set on games to ensure only people of an age group plays it. However people are idiots so who knows I guess the only real answer is if the person playing the game is mentally healthy and supervised to make sure he or se won't go on a rampage...but where's the fun in that. How much further can games go. Violence in video games seems to be limitless. Even if a game is controversial it might get an A rating and released. The thing with that is the controversy is usually set around things that make people uncomfortable like JFK's assassination or something to that effect but yet explicit deaths are ok.
-2 It seems more like Peter is the bad guy due to the fact that Ender isn't really instigating the attack.
ghyui
ReplyDeleteChapter 1
ReplyDelete1. is it a game? maybe. is it play? certainly. or at least procrastination.
2. I saw it more as macho posturing and a feeble attempt to establish a pecking order over actually being a game, but it seemed the children derived a sick sense of pleasure from it anyway.
3. I like Ender's strategy. it seems like the only logical one to me. the operative word in "fair play" is "play." in a serious situation facing bodily harm, nobody is "playing" unless the risk is universally accepted as part of the game. in a game, fair play is essential to ensure no one player gets an advantage that would discourage other players and thus reduce the audience/revinue.
Chapter 2
1. games in most cases parody reality with more palletable consequences for what they emulate. violence in games can have varying degrees like violence in reality, but usually to a much lesser extent. often it is a facimile of true violence or violent acts that the game produces, not true violence. this is subject to nature of the rules of the game and the intent of the players, of course. the violence in games is not just acceptable, but neccissary. life is a violent undertaking, and violent games teach us survival. the violence goes to far when injury beyond the accepted limit of the games boundries occurs or is intended. for instance, putting razor blades on your football helmet, or barbed wire on your boxing gloves.
3. peter's the bad guy. even though ender is playing the "bugger," he's being coerced into doing so, and is not playing of his own will. peter intentionally pushes the levels of violence in the game beyond acceptable limits.
I think it is a game because it was his way of a pass time
ReplyDeleteIs a game because they see bulling as something cool
ReplyDeleteFair in a video game for me anything gose so it's what it's
ReplyDeleteHow far can violeces go in a game well the designer needs to check what age and type of people the designer is targeting
ReplyDeletethe bad guy is the mask and diffrent people like the mask and some diss like the mask
ReplyDelete