“It’s Like I’m IN the Game!”

technology grandma

Today, video game technology is advancing like never before. New systems, devices, and interfaces are being developed with the intent of bringing a truly life-like experience to the user. Year after year, whether it be at E3 conferences or on IGN blogs, people are anxiously expecting and waiting for the newest, biggest, most advance technologies to hit the market. People ask themselves, what will be able to top last year’s device? When will we reach the ultimate interface that allows for the ultimate experience?

And as a result of these various systems, one is given the option between countless modes and interfaces from which to choose and experience a video game. These differences in interface allow the user and fellow video game lover to not only play the video game, but experience the game play as a member and become integral part of the simulated world. Furthermore, the fact that each video game system works differently through their interface allows for unique experiences specific to that system. Nevertheless, each of these interfaces work towards the same purpose: to bring enjoyment from a video game by giving a sense of reality within a simulated world.

ps4 controlnintendo 3dsxbox kinect

Nowadays, people expect for video game systems to have an extra “oomf” in order to take the player to a new level of virtual reality and make their presence more known within the virtual world. Every system today has a specific interface that distinguishes them from their competitors. These differences become ways in which the player and user may feel more present within a video game. For example, the PS4 has a wireless controller with a touch pad and movement sensors that allow the player to affect the game play through more than just pressing buttons- now it becomes a game of 3D space. The movements of video game avatars now become part of your own movements. The companies of Microsoft and Nintendo took this and made it a whole style of play through the interface of the Xbox Kinect and Nintendo 3DS. The Kinect allowed for the player’s whole body to become the control and thus make your person the actual character in the game. The Nintendo 3DS brought in the aspect of 3D and made a revolutionary advancement in how we see video games (LITERALLY). The images and videos played on the screen of the 3DS can be viewed in 3D without glasses and makes the video game seem as if it were a part of the real world.

Finally, the most high-tech interfaces that affect the sense of presence within a simulated world are found in virtual reality helmets such as the Oculus Rift as seen in the above video. This interface allows the user to seemingly step INTO the virtual world of the video game itself. There are no avatars or characters other than yourself. The Oculus Rift and other similar interfaces create a first person point of view of a video game and allow you to be the main character of the game. This is a major advancement on what many call Role Playing Games (RPGs) and First Person Shooters (FPS) where the point of view of the video game is completely in first person. However, the Oculus Rift is unique in how it blocks out the reality of the physical world we see and immerses the player into the virtual/simulated world of the video game. It’s as if you are literally IN the game! And what once was only a dream of the future has now become a reality: a person can experience a video game and become present in a simulated world through the advancements of interfaces and systems.

The Gendered Gaze as Objectification

Can “gender in the gaze” be equated to objectification?

ugh the male gaze

The image of women in media has largely been produced into a what most men would find desirable: skinny, yet with curves all over. Therefore, what has been created for men is a desire for something almost impossible and unattainable, and for women a pressure to become what is desired. Through the specific presentation and placement of women in media as filtered through the gendered or male gaze, women have become a thing and object rather than a person. And now, what has resulted is a battle for freedom from objectification within a woman’s self.

your body is a battlegroundHowever, this battle has been happening for centuries. As explained by Sturken and Cartwright, there has been a tradition of the nude in painting to present the nude women to male viewers (124). Throughout history, we see paintings and artworks with the code “of imaging the female nude,” and has long been established as a norm in society. The reading explains how the viewer sees the work and the women may either interact with the  viewer or have a passive look. To explain, the instance where the viewer is met with the eyes of the woman depicted gives a sense of scopohilia- the pleasure in looking and exhibitionism. This sense of scopophilia translates the look of the woman towards the viewer as one of sexual desire and pleasure at being looked at- as if the woman is saying, “keep looking at me.” This brings all the attention to the woman and distracts from the rest of the image.

 beer women

Here, the women look directly at the viewer in a seducing manner to bring the attention directly to them. And forget about the beer, these women HAVE become the beer, and the male gaze makes these women objects of desire which further plays into the idea of scopophilia.

The second manner women become objects through the male gaze is by means of their depiction as passive objects. As seen in many forms of media, women are often times depicted as candid or passive objects by having them look off away from the direct gaze of the viewer. Through this presentation of women, the male gaze takes on a new aspect: Voyeurism. As explained by the reading, voyeurism is the pleasure one takes in looking while not being seen looking. Therefore, when the women depicted do not look at the viewer, the viewer’s gaze is made more powerful as it brings an almost sadistic aspect to the gaze (124).

candid ad

The gendered or male gaze has long been used in the presentation and depiction of women in media. Through the gaze, women have battled with this objectification that has developed from what has historically been accepted as the norm as seen in various works of art. Although this idea is nothing new, it has been amplified into something greater with the passing of time. Today, we see women and their bodies being used more and more as objects of pleasure and desire, but this has served to distort reality and what is actuality. And I talk about this in terms of the female body because of its historical prevalence in culture, but this idea does not solely stay within the realm of women objectification. The male body has also suffered objectification as a form of sexual desire and unattainable reality. However, this is not a matter of who gets it worse, but rather, why is this gaze and presentation of bodies still used in the first place?

what do you see

What is truth?

I don’t want to get philosophical, but instead rhetorical. What is “truth” in rhetoric? Within our discussions in class, we spoke about the rhetorical aspect of truth and briefly distinguished it from the philosophical concept of truth. They are not the same thing, but rather two ways to approach and view our knowledge. And these truths vary and change, but can be used to persuade us into believing a certain way. So to begin, we discussed how truth comes from knowledge. I found this very simple to understand- you can’t believe in a truth without first having some sort of knowledge of it. However, what I questioned was if this knowledge also involved understanding. Is the mere knowledge of a “truth” enough for belief, or does belief in a truth require understanding? Before we went on in our discussion, I held the stance that in order for truth to hold, it must be known AND understood, meaning that there needs to be evidence and support in order to have the audience or listener understand what the truth is about and have the opportunity to believe it. This ties back to the concept of rhetorical truth where we ask the question: How do we know what we know? I will elaborate a bit on this in the next section.

So to continue, another aspect that was elaborated on in our discussion was this difference in rhetorical and philosophical truth. In rhetoric, there is a cultural construction of knowledge where we ask the questions: what is known? How do we know it? However, in philosophy, we have what is seen as universal truth where the question asked is: what can be known? And to stick to rhetorical truths, what needs to be shown in these truths is evidence and backup to claims of truth. With this in mind, let me introduce the ideas of episteme, doxa, and techne which we elaborated on in class. Episteme means knowledge or “justified true belief.” The word derives from the Ancient Greek word for knowledge or science. In other words, it means truth that stands as fact. This may be through evidence and testing and shows it as absolute fact. Doxa, however, juxtaposes episteme. Doxa means common belief or popular opinion. Behind doxa there is no real evidence except the fact that others believe it to be true. Doxa therefore changes from person to person and brings the variety in truths in rhetoric.

However, one thing worth mentioning is that episteme and doxa are not separate realms or spheres of thinking. We discussed in class that these concepts are more like a spectrum. There are varying levels of each where a truth is seen closer to episteme or closer to doxa. Furthermore, one of the important things to keep in mind is the concept of logos and its influence in doxa and episteme. I already touched a bit on it, but to elaborate a bit more, logos works as the separation between doxa and episteme. The evidence behind a truth establishes it as doxa or episteme and creates the foundation on which the truth stands.