Galloway’s fifth and final chapter, “Countergaming”, offers discourse on a category/genre of video games considered counter-intuitive to normative video game experiences. Galloway’s discussion begins with the concept of “artist made game mods” which he describes as being “contradictory logic” in that these types of mods “usurp gameplay or eliminate it entirely”. Galloway then asks how these “mods” should be discussed academically by defining a “video game mod” as being a part of three basic categories:
“(1) at the level of its visual design...
(2) at the level of the rules of the game...
(3) at the level of its software technology...”
However, Galloway claims that “artist made game mods” deal mostly with (1) and (3). He amends his claim by stating a few examples (of which, Jodi, is his favourite mark throughout the chapter) and then dives into a discussion on counter-cinema quoting Peter Wollen’s seven theses on the subject.
Galloway describes the counter-cinema movement as being unlike the counter-gaming movement, in that the counter-gaming movement exists as a cornerstone of the gaming market (i.e Counter Strike, the level editors and creators of such titles as Little Big Planet or Jaffe’s Mod Nation Racers).
Through the ground work Galloway lays in the beginning of the chapter, he continues his discussion on more “formalist” game mods which I likened to alternative or experimental film rather than counter-cinema.
Galloway then borrows from Peter Wollen creating his own list of six theses that distinguish counter-gaming from normative, conventional gaming:
(1) Transparency versus foregrounding...
-regular graphic interface (no sign of the engine behind the game) versus pure code or pure interplay of the environment
(2) Gameplay versus aestheticism...
-regular gaming (cohesive narrative, goals) versus formalist experiments
(3) Representational modelling versus visual artefacts...
-normal graphics versus glitches/by-products of the graphic engine
(4) Natural physics versus invented physics...
-self-explanatory
(5) Interactivity versus non-correspondence...
-regular input device (i.e. controller) functions versus delayed or non-existent or irrationally functioning input device
(6) Gamic action versus radical action...
-regular normative gameplay versus alternative gameplay
The final comments from Galloway at the end of this chapter come off almost as a call to those artists interested in making countergaming a legitimate craft to look not only at the visual aspects of video games but also at the interactive component when creating works of art; “The countergaming movement should aspire to... redefin[e] play itself.”
As a starting point to a discussion on countergaming, this last chapter serves as a fairly solid base. I agree with Galloway’s six theses on countergaming and find that the formation of his concepts through an adaptation of film theory in this particular aspect of videogame culture to be appropriate.
However, I found myself disappointed that Galloway’s examples stick mostly to PC mods and stay away from console and console video game modification. Although Galloway touches upon this niche aspect of the market he fails to mention products like Game Genie or Pro Action Replay, both of which could be considered player mods on console systems allowing for examples of points 1, 3, 4, 5, and possibly even 6 on Galloway’s theses of countergaming.
Also, what about input device mods? How would Galloway comment on a homebrew rapid fire controller? In a discussion on countergaming, using Galloway’s own theses, it would seem that physical modifications to the input devices would “aspire to redefine play itself”. In this essence, the highest form of counter-gaming would contain new forms of player + input device = video gaming. Thus, I feel that a discussion on input device hardware modification on both the PC and console ends of gaming would have also been beneficial.
No comments:
Post a Comment