Future Cinema

Course Site for Future Cinema 1 (and sometimes Future Cinema 2: Applied Theory) at York University, Canada

Questions for “How Games Move Us.”

1.)   Isbister’s introduction focuses partially on the reasons why games have struggled to gain mainstream acceptance, as well as noting the barriers to entry for non-gamers. One of her brief acknowledgements is to “skill level,” which I believe to be possibly the greatest barrier. In what ways would one’s inability to complete an intended decision render potential emotionality and affective capacity inaccessible? Is this a barrier to entry with other mediums, or even other forms of play? And in what ways does personal skill level limit potential for interactive social play discussed in later chapters?

2.)   One of the more interesting images from How Games Move Us involves a comparison between Little Big Planet and the Harold Lloyd film Saftey Last. In what ways have video games become more cinematic or borrowed elements from cinema for evocative purposes?

3.)   Isbister mentions Sr. Wii Bowling leagues, which acted as bowling leagues for those who could no longer attend bowling events physically. Could the concepts of social games be extrapolated for high-performance athletes rehabilitating injuries to keep their skills sharp? If so, what could this suggest about the realism and transferable skills present in gaming?

4.)   A few years back, a friend of mine told me that his teenage son and their friends were holding Minecraft elections. I never followed up on this development; however, this seems to be akin to the concepts raised within How Games Move Us. This question is multifaceted, and answers to both parts should be contextualized through use of the text and personal response. First, what would define success for the Minecraft election? Second, do you believe they were successful? Why, or why not?

Wed, October 24 2018 » Future Cinema