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.

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.

A moving camera operates in a dynamic manner that not only captures a scene that is not still, but, engages the audience into the scene. This sense of engagement or role within the film from the audiences’ perspective is all due to the dynamics of the camera and how the “mise en scene” is developed. There is more to a film than the capturing of shot, the moving camera allows for “the gaze” to be elaborate, an in some cases, maybe more intimate with the spectator. This allows for the observer to have power over the object in a different manner, it is not only examining just the object as a whole, but taking apart the object to discover ideas about it. Yes, the object has ownership of “the gaze” as it is whats being examined but with the limitations of what about the object, the observer wants to see. It is possible to make the mise en scenee due to the moving camera because, a setting can be shown to an audience. Take the 1954 film Rear Window, at the commencement of the film there the camera shows the audience an external/outdoor view of some apartments which allows them to decode the setting for the film.
The artist is the one who is in power of creating the subject which in turn affects the observes power over the subject. Although the prior sentence may seem misleading but it basically explains how the “artist” can paint or create something (subject) and arrange (montage) it in a particular way to have the audience (observers) analyze the product. In the film, there are other ways that the moving camera demonstrates the effectiveness of movement. For example, once the scene or setting is shown to the audience, we are then taken into the apartment of the main character, protagonist, journalist who is sleeping. A close up is then made of the character as we examine his face being awoken by the second character, a female that kisses him. It is intimate, of course a kiss in general in intimate, but with the innovation of moving cameras we see the exchangement of words and expressions in a more complex manner.
Thus, the ethics of the artist, subject, and observer are dependent on the positioning and creating of the camera and scene. Having close-ups, then reverse-camera shots demonstrate the level of excitement within a conversation in a film, which an audience could decode as important or not significant. Monaco said it best in the reading Language of Film, “Film has no grammar. There are, however, some vaguely defined rules of usage in cinematic language, and the syntax of film- its systematic arrangement-orders these rules and indicates relationship among them” (Monaco p191). Ethics can only be established by the method an artist decides to develop the “mise en scene” which will then depict the relationships an audience identifies with, giving them the power, to decide how to decode the subject. Taking another reading into consideration for further elaboration is form Sturken and Catwright where they identified that “Just as images are both representations and producers of the ideologies of their time, they are also factors in the power relations between human subjects and between individuals and institutions” (Sturken & Catwright p93). Not to confuse people with the different subjects at hand, but they do interpret how an observer can be effected by the artists’ creation and a moving camera has much to do with what Monaco and Sturken/Catwright have to say about the relationships between power of an observer and the object being identified with.

In the Parry-Giles article, Hilary Clinton was type casted through a repetition of images, scenes, and phrases. The media over time used “visual themes” by repeating images of Hilary Clinton to create a sense of familiarity. Once a media outlet chooses the spin they want for an image or a story, they will show and reshow that image so that it becomes engrained in the viewer’s mind. The article stated that over time she “is depicted as a career woman turned feared feminist, a sometimes all-powerful First Lady who becomes a more traditional “good mother,” and a “stand by your man” wife who is victimized by a cheating husband.” This adherence to stereotypes is still prevalent in television media today. Relating to Hilary Clinton’s control, I believe at this point she has some, but not much room to take command of her own image. Even if she tried to make changes, as supported by the article, the media would be in control of what is shown to the public for the most part, so it would be quite difficult. Considering she is a seasoned veteran of being in the public eye for the last 20 or so years, people’s opinions have possibly been solidified from prior knowledge. I do think there is always room for change and evolution, but that doesn’t mean that she would be able to sway the public opinion in her favor.

A loose connection that comes to mind when discussing framing in the media is the popular documentary “Black Fish” from 2013. It was given accolades for exposing the dark side of Sea World’s Killer Whale captivity practices and entertainment show. Although Sea World came out and tried to defend themselves on many of the points made throughout the documentary, including running an extensive advertising campaign, it didn’t change the fact that their net income dropped 84% in just one quarter after the release. Since then, they have never truly bounced back in the public’s eye, and now their current Orca show is set to close by the end of 2016. The documentary was framed in an appealing and grotesque way to sway the perceptions of the viewers. This also connects to the new documentary “Making a Murderer,” which has been popular all over the Internet, especially through social media, for the past few months. Although the series clearly uses a repetition of facts, images, and phrases to sway the audience into believing the innocence of the main subject, it has been noted that a few key facts were deliberately left out. With these facts the opponents claim that the case was clearly carried out effectively and the guilty party was rightfully convicted. But sin ce the mass majority of people have only investigated the case in the scope of the documentary, their perceptions are being framed by the will of the producers. However you see it, framing is a huge part of our modern communication practices, and should be taken into account when viewing media.