HalfReal? GOGO Half Life!

My analysis is as follows:
Statements about game elements are half-real, and help create the rules of the game within the players mind. The rules in a video game actually exist in the game and can be considered part of the real world by general assumption. The idea Juul has here is essentially a reworked the “this is not a pipe” argument reworked for games in the reverse. In the context of a game, the statements about fiction are true. Just as in the context of a picture, it is a pipe. Furthermore, simplification of game fiction creates deeper worlds as a mere concept and rules to govern within them... just as in McCloud's arguments. Furthermore, the rules of a game are largely dependent upon real world situations and literacies. Even pong which contains no human images can be quickly figured out, abstraction aside. Conversely, many real world traits are omitted from even the most realistic games, and players must feel out what to do. An example would be being unable to fly planes in GTA4. In real life you would likely be unable to due to technical inexperience, but one might try. In this iteration of GTA however, it is simply not an option. Even if you could fly, new rules would exist that both defy and define the fiction of the world. Why can't I fly into homes and wreck them with my plane, for example. While there are many incongruities in games, they remain a clever mix. Half-real, real rules created to govern fictional worlds.

Visual Rhetoric? Totally totally

This reading was pretty good but very hefty size wise. Furthermore, he spends a lot of time explaining the generic terms to set up for his message. Regardless, the message is easy to apply in some ways. Visual rhetoric in games for example, could be quickly found within character sprites in a game. An under dressed woman, with extreme combat abilities for example, is doing a lot of talking. The very essence of this woman sells the game, affects the story, and the overall reception of the game. The actions (procedural rhetoric) that result from play, persuade the player in numerous ways. Combined with unique avatars and other game elements, the result is a message without words. A powerful one at that. Nothing sells an idea like selling the idea through your own actions.

Games are All Encompassing Piles of Awesome... Seriously

I must say I enjoyed this reading. The ties to video games likely had something to do with it, but to put it simply I found it fairly well thought out. He broke it down into four specific components but still left plenty of room for other interpretations and opinions. While many could say he was leaving himself a back door, I really approve of this. Many authors thus far, have restricted the readers to their own ideas as the only solution. This author encourages us to decide for ourselves. The only issue I have, is the fact that his message is essentially moot at the end of the reading. All it does is raise awareness of these gaming factors. Factors that are easily inferred on their own and are given no additional relevance from the reading. That said the vast majority of his theory makes sense. Games certainly are a storytelling medium. Even the most simple have his "narrative elements" in spades. A well written piece to be sure. Just wish it was more than four definitions.

My eye has been convinced to buy....

The concept of a visual argument is by no means a new one. The study of visual arguments however, is fairly new. The author, Blair, breaks things down in a simple but often overlooked manner. A visual argument is simply that. an argument (or idea) in a visual form. This may seem simple (because it is), but the point is well seen. His combination of two broad terms makes it virtually impossible to deny the existence of visual arguments. In my mind, ads would be the obvious culprit, and for a large part... they are. The authors definition however, expands to include nearly all forms of intentional visual media if not more. Everything has a purpose or meaning that can be expressed through images. While much of these arguments are dependent upon adequate socialization he is right for the most part. He should further address two issues however. First off would be the perception of visual arguments. If the argument is not perceived correctly (as intended) is it still an argument? Secondly, if one is blind, do visual arguments exist? Beyond these two points, Blair exceeds my expectations to create a compelling argument through a different visual medium... Words...

Who names their kid Gunther?

This article was back to the old boring style, but the author still manages to make some excellent points. Gunther makes several interesting observations and tries to redefine genre. While my perception of genre remains relatively unchanged, it is easy to see where Gunther is coming from. The genres are defined by the joining of different modes(of media). He is quite outspoken about the subject to the point where he seems to rant but at least has the sense to give a clear call to action. Gunther informs the audience that his analysis can benefit the education system and future generations. While many writers or their pieces fail to impress or even attempt to impress an idea upon a person, Gunther is able to succeed on this regard. This may seem unimportant, but the fact that I can remember what he is trying to achieve is better than a piece that fades into my memory.

McCloud and Horn: Images that Preach?

First off, I really enjoyed McCloud's piece as it is more engaging and visual than a traditional reading.(obviously) That being said, I have encountered his work before. Excerpts from this very reading in fact. The medium however continues to prove his points despite my previous encounters with it. I find it interesting that he believes cartoons are not simple, but just more focused on what they need to show. In a way it is like poetry. But whereas poetry is "saying more with less" to allow for interpretation, comics limit in a way that narrows perception to create a message. It can be a very strong tool as McCloud (literally) illustrates in his piece. His argument is so persuasive, I would say the only reason comics are not used more is their public image. Furthermore, the way he writes is convincing and seems to push you out of your comfort zone by engaging you so completely. It is kinda wierd in an existensialist way but the points are well seen. The Horn piece speaks about the power of the image as well, but does so in a more straightforward way. Images are far from the very literal pieces of paper they start as and the various abstract examples serve his point well. Pictures not only are worth 1000 words, they are also an intentional message by nature it would seem. In a "V for Vendetta" sort of logic, the pictures and images become ideas which are far more important than we initially realize.

Literacy, an evolution of ideas

This piece, besides being very boring, dealt with the evolution of literacies as the are seen today in an increasingly technology dependent world. I find it interesting that literacy in modern terminology originated with the growth of industry. It would seem that many of our current values derived from such pursuits of wealth. All in all, quite intriguing. Furthermore, the term "literacy" is reapplied to old and even defunct technologies by the author. It is like the meaning always existed but we never had a word for it. Literacy. Is it the ability to manipulate a technology or something more? One thing remains certain. Literacy has become an integral part of the modern world