Megan Vrolijk

During my search for a subversive video game, I came across a game put out by Chevron. Energyville attempts to utilize the medium to sell more petroleum, which seems like it would probably have done succeeded when society had more faith in the oil industry.

However, a pretty funny subversive video game is Los Disney. This game's premise is that Disney has bought Florida and your job is to infiltrate the park and find Walt Disney's frozen head.

This article by the Washington Post is pretty interesting in that it compares the U.S. constitution to a video game at the end of the article. The main section of the article is commenting on serious games such as Food Force (the U.N. game). I think that the comparison of real life to serious games raises the question of how technology has morphed our perception of reality. If positive serious games are compared to reality, where do other games such as America's Army enter into the discussion?

A Force More Powerful is, as most people have expressed, frustrating and slow moving. While the concept could be interesting, the interface is difficult to navigate. Even when I was doing well at the game, I was unable to figure out what tactics were helping my cause. Also, while in many games you build upon knowledge, A Force More Powerful does not use this technique. I think that if you were introduced to ways of diffusing situations and could then see the successful results of these procedures, it would be much less difficult. For the most part I received messages such as the one in the picture informing me that I was unable to complete a task. It also seemed that the reasons were always the same. I think that some techniques to make the game more user friendly and interesting would be to have the player build upon skills that are introduced throughout the game, a more cause and effect method, and better graphics.

I think that the idea that the "cybertext reader is not safe" is one of Aarseth's important points when comparing the article with the games we played on Monday. Not only does the player have an avatar who they often become connected with in a way that a reader may not connect in a novel, the actions the avatar takes is controlled by the player. The result is that "Each decision will make some parts of the text more, and others less, accessible, and you may never know the exact results of your choices; that is, exactly what you missed." Aarseth later compares non-linear text in the form of I-Ching to action adventure games. An additional difference between the two that he partially explores is that in a book the reader can subsequently explore the other options in way that is not available to a player. In a game, all the options are not apparent. While a player may be able to discover all of the options, one does not realize what all these are without much time and effort. However in I-Ching, one only has to look at the number of pages to realize the number of choices.

Indigo Prophecy is less linear than a movie but is not free reign. Each choice the character makes that you are controlling effects the outcome of the story, but in a controlled way. There are a limited number of outcomes, even if you are unable to decipher it as the player. For example, when the two cops are boxing, you have to be Carla. Certain choices are made for you to allow the story line to continue.

Another example is when Tyler goes to the book store. You are not able to decide to leave the store until you have completed the mission. I think the game works more as a fission model in that each path is still defined, although as the player you can pick the path. This is much different from King's Quest in that, although you can move freely around the world you are in, the game and storyline will not change depending on your choices. Whether or not you kill the witch, you still have to go up into the clouds. While in King's Quest there are two paths to the same place, in Indigo Prophecy, there are multiple paths.