Reyy

I thought I would start at the conclusion of the reading to illustrate my understanding of McLuhan's topics, "That games are extensions, not of our private but of our social selves, and that they are media of communication, should now be plain. If, finally, we ask, "Are games mass media?" the answer has to be "Yes." Games are situations contrived to permit simultaneous participation of many people in some significant pattern of their own corporate lives."(pg. 245) Games and sports are a medium of communication. As much as it were to tribal societies of the past but we have intellectualized it through writing...aka rules, rulebooks, scoreboards, magazines. McLuhan also points out that the form or pattern of the game is of first importance because it is the central core of the experience. Although the interdependence of the everyone to the game is what makes the game "fun". As an example he uses a hockey player's attitude towards his game and the audience, "Rocket Richard, the Canadian hockey player, used to comment on the poor acoustics of some arenas. He felt that the puck off his stick rode on the roar of the crowd." This is also probably along the same thought as the phrase "home field advantage"...[breaktime...breakfast ^_^ ]

I remember from the movie "A Beautiful Mind" how gaming theory was mentioned. Or was it implied? After looking at a wiki entry about the movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Beautiful_Mind_%28film%29 The term Nash Equilibrium caught my interest.

"In game theory, the Nash equilibrium...Stated simply, you and I are in Nash equilibrium if I am making the best decision I can, taking into account your decision, and you are making the best decision you can, taking into account my decision." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

I don't know how well the wiki entry was researched. But I find it interesting how this theory intuitively reminds me of "tic tac toe". There's a lot of mathematics in the entry so be forewarned (sorry, the internet has ruined my grammar skills)

The last video I played was called "Gravity Pods". It's pretty much another hybrid of pong. I enjoy the visual calculations, riddled with obstacles, the player has to make in order to blow up the target. It is from http://www.wickedpissahgames.com/games/gravitypods/GravityPods.html

The discussion we had about McLuhan's book was a little disappointing but I think most people were preoccupied about the presentation of their craft, me included.

I don't think game designers are "limiting themselves" to the conventions established in other media. If M. Wolf was referring to the narrative quality of the other media, then the designers are not limiting themselves. They are designing in such a way that players can use "intuition" on top of the rules established by the game. [GDs know their players] Most players will want an objective, [start here...end here]. Is there a possibility for abstraction to result in a different gaming experience? Sure.

The notion of "abstraction resulting in new gaming experience" that the author suggested is confusing. I thought the games today evolved from abstracted games of the past. Yes, a lot of the video games copy from the more successful ones. But that's a result of a market driven industry.

The thing I like about the abstraction of a video game is the essence of the game will be clear. It's up to me to add to it [imagery]. Out of the games played last Wednesday, "Space Invaders" appealed to me the most. It didn't have the 3D illusion of the other two. I realize the game was sold to people as "beings from another world, universe, galaxy, etc invading the planet". But to me it was interesting, that I didn't need the 3D illusion to see my 'space' becoming more limited as these things come down the screen.

As far as for a game to be played for the midterm, I thought of any Halo game. Unfortunately I don't have Halo or any pc game for that matter. Minesweeper, maybe?