|
7.
LINGUISTIC DETERMINISM FOR DUMMIES
Although
perhaps one of the most taken for granted facets of gaming, the
language used to discuss the medium conveys a great deal about
how gamers conceive of the notion of play and their role as media
consumers. When I was younger and a true video game nut, many
recesses at school were spent talking with friends about our adventures
in certain games. Zelda,
Final
Fantasy, Double Dragon: these were the things that
interested us. Dividing my grade two class was the loyalty to
a particular video game company. Today, gamers are generally older
and thus have a greater disposable income making it easier to
have everything the market offers rather than impose the need
to choose. The common schoolyard question was: "What system
do you have?" The word 'system' was logical as the
two major competitors were the Nintendo Entertainment System
and the Sega Master System. Yet it is a word that has recently
become obsolete in discussions on gaming, and replaced with the
much less imposing "console". The XBox, PS2 and Gamecube
are simply thought of as segments of home entertainment rather
than complicated machines used to play games on. Connotations
of rules and order are negated with this small linguistic change.
On top of the removal of the word from these units' titles, the
popularity of Playstation Magazine and XBox Magazine - sources
clearly produced by the companies they comment on - has contributed
to a way of thinking of video games an analogous yet superior
to a stereo or DVD player. Changes in the language of gaming such
as this, have the effect of greatly altering the way players think
about the medium. It skews the perceptions of gamers to assume
that they have an active role in the way the industry evolves.
Take for example this messageboard user's diatribe on the state
of Nintendo. Under the handle QuickKick89, he identifies himself
as being 21 years old:
Nintendo is
a company which refuses to evolve, which brings me back to my
original point of me being skeptical of their attempt to Revolutionize
gameplay. They've been doing the same thing, essentially, since
the 1980's - using their old standby franchises and refusing
to move up with new technology. And when they DO try to evolve,
it's usually not with the best moves in mind, the Virtual Boy
and yes, even the DS (which is downright pathetic when compared
to the PSP), are examples. So, am I skeptic? Yes, I am. I believe
that Sony is making the right moves for the next-gen by using
the better graphics standpoint, considering that has worked
for them so well in the past. While Microsoft may catch a bit
of their thunder, I think next gen will essentially be even
more of what this gen was: a two horse race. I will tell you
right now, if we are living in a two-console world in 5 years,
and Nintendo is making the next Mario and Zelda for the PS3
and 360, I will not at all be surprised.5
The
concerns of gamers have turned towards the business side of their
play machines. This user aligns himself with a loyalty to the
industry and appears to be willing to do anything one company
tells him to do, while deriding a company for what he identifies
as a lack of innovation. While appearing far more versed in the
terms of their technology, contemporary gameplayers have no regard
for the imposing, all-encompassing nature of the companies they
contribute to.
"The
stronger the positions of the culture industry become, the more
summarily it can deal with customers' needs, producing them,
controlling them, disciplining them, and even withdrawing amusement:
no limits are set to cultural progress of this kind…As
employees, men are reminded of the rational organization and
urged to fit in like sensible people. As customers, the freedom
of choice, the charm of novelty, is demonstrated to them on
the screen or in the press by means of human and personal anecdote.
In either case they remain objects."6
|
