Christensen notes that customers increasingly use wireless phones instead of landline service, tolerating poorer-performing technologies in exchange for convenience and lower cost. (Christensen, Kindle location 5006)  Since his writing, broadband has become faster and more reliable.  This has allowed VoIP companies to improve the quality of their services while continuing to offer lower rates than incumbent organizations.

In one sense, I’ve taken one small step away from traditional telephony by switching to a cable provider for the landline at my home.  Christensen suggests that cable companies that offer voice services are following a sustaining, not a disruptive, strategy.  I would contend that their voice offerings are extremely disruptive to traditional phone companies.  I chose a less-expensive home phone option from the cable company that came bundled with Internet service.  Before that, I always relied on a phone company for my landline.  I contend that mine was the telecom’s business to lose.  And it did.  On top of higher prices, my local telecom did not offer broadband service in my area.  Its inability to compete cost not only Internet service, but phone service as well.

After reading this chapter, I am giving serious consideration to cancelling my home phone altogether.  Mobile has become my primary medium of communicating, whether using voice, text, instant messaging, or email.  Coupling newer VoIP options such as Google Voice, Skype, and Magic Jack, the need for a landline is becoming increasingly less relevant in my day to day life – especially since they are available on the computer and mobile device.  Taking into account the number of computers in my household (three) and mobile devices (two), I effectively have five phone lines for only two users.  In addition, the various VoIP options at my disposal offer more novel features than the traditional phone such as transcribed voicemail, free texting, email alerts, and unified phone numbers across my devices accessible anywhere with 3G or Wi-Fi.  Why am I still paying for a service I rarely use?

The same holds at my place of business.  When I started working at Microsoft, I was surprised that I had to actively request a phone number and a desk phone.  When the device arrived, it had one cord – a USB cable to connect it to my computer.  As I’ve adapted to the way the company does business, it became clear why they only provide phones upon request.  Voice communication is not relevant for the majority of our interactions.  More remarkable still is the notion that wherever I take my company-issued laptop, I’m also taking my office phone.  As long as I have Internet connection, I can make or receive calls as if I were in the office without worrying about turning on call-forwarding or remembering to turn it off when I return.

As Christensen addresses throughout the chapter, one technology alone could not disrupt traditional telecoms’ business in any meaningful way.  However, when combined, cable broadband, Wi-Fi, mobile, and non-voice communications are taking a serious cut of the incumbents’ business.  Time will tell if the landline will become a relic like the telegraph before it.  I for one won’t miss it or the 34 unheard (and likely unimportant) voicemails waiting for the next time I dust it off to use it.

Questions:

1. In light of the technological growth during seven years since Christensen published Seeing What’s Next, does traditional telephony have a place in today’s market?
2. What are the most important voice features to you?  Does the traditional land line provide those features?
3. Can traditional phone companies compete with the disrupters?  How will they have to adapt to increase revenue?

Notes:
Christensen, C. (2004). Seeing what’s next: Using the theories of innovation to predict industry change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

The presentations I gave in class went quite well.  My delivery improved between the first and second presentations, which goes to show that practice can only prepare you to a certain point.  Actually presenting to an audience is the only way to get better.  I had my whole presentation worked out in my head, but once it began I didn’t trust myself and ended referring to my outline more than I had intended.  Good thing I had it!

I think the content of my presentation went over well with my classmates and they understood the basis of my argument.  Judging by the comments on my blog post, they appeared to agree with me that the author came off a bit alarmist.

I thank everyone for listening and for such great participation during the presentation and for the kind remarks that they posted on my blog.

I’m looking forward to presenting my term project to the entire class!

The video game is growing.  To do so, it has to expand beyond its core user group by shifting their attention to undershot and overshot markets that were previously ignored – namely female gamers and adults, which it has done in part through narratives that appeal to their sensibilities.  Christensen’s theories on how companies successfully target these markets will be important to examine in the context of my argument.

At the same time, video games are contending with old media of television and movies.  Christensen’s theory on new market disruptions will help explain how old media companies have responded to this disrupter.  A big part of the film business has been to make movies based on video games.  Some companies acquire start-ups or develop competing businesses.  I will apply Christensen’s thinking to how studios such as Sony and Warner Bros. have used their expertise in storytelling to the upstart medium of video games.

Fidler will influence my understanding of how old media might change to contend with the increasing time people are playing games and demanding more interactivity with their entertainment.  One harbinger of a potential shift is the growth of 3-D films to give audiences a more immersive experience.  While this technology still does not make the movie-going experience interactive, it has forced filmmakers to re-evaluate how they create their stories and perhaps will evolve into something we cannot yet imagine.

My timeline has remained fairly true to my original thinking.  Though I thought that I would spend more time exploring the rise of video games in the 1970s, I will likely just touch on a few key developments from that time period before concentrating on the introduction of basic storylines such as Nintendo’s Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda.  Then I will look at the cinematic cut-scenes that became more ubiquitous in the 1990s and early 21^st Century.  My future will concentrate on the newer technologies that allow for a deeper, more immersive experience.

In her The New Atlantis journal article, “The Age of Egocasting,” Christine Rosen criticizes the culture of personalization, where we focus only on our own interests and where we shelter ourselves from unwanted media.  Addressing shifting trends in television and music, Rosen argues that technology such as TV remotes, DVRs, and MP3 players are having a dire effect on the entertainment industry.  Tools that allow us to individually shape our own entertainment experience disrupt traditional business models of media producers.  But she believes these technologies have a far worse consequence for consumers.  By selecting what we want to see or hear, when and how we want, we are becoming increasingly narcissistic.

The remote control was the first personalized technology to alter media consumption when it became mainstream in the 1980s.  At that time, cable television became ubiquitous and the remote control enabled viewers to easily and comfortably navigate the increasing number of channels they received.  This led to “grazing,” a steady but laconic approach to consumption motivated by the constant search for something better. (Rosen, p. 55)  As viewing habits changed, content creators had to adapt to viewing trends. To attract audiences, they used tools like opening their shows with spectacle, delaying opening credit sequences, and beginning programs right after one another without commercial breaks.  Personally, I see these as positive changes in television production.  The world is moving faster, so everyone needs to keep up or risk becoming irrelevant.  Though, Rosen also suggests that the remote led to an unfortunate consequence.  Programs now have very limited windows to find audiences before the networks cancel them.  If NBC’s “Seinfeld” premiered today it would have likely been cancelled after four episodes, which would have been a great loss for millions of devoted fans.  Early episodes struggled to find an audience and the production barely resembled the polished product of seasons three and on.  I can only imagine the number of quality programs that have been lost due to a fickle, empowered audience.

The rise of the TiVo presented different problems for consumers.  While people appreciate the freedom of the time-shifted viewing that TiVo allows, Rosen believes that we are becoming slaves to these machines.  TiVo offers the unprecedented ability for people to skip commercials, fast forward or pause a show in progress, and watch programs whenever it’s convenient. According to Rosen, devoted DVR users believe the devices have vastly improved their lives and liken them to idols that should be worshipped.  For these viewers, more control, more choice, and less time grazing equate to a better experience.  However, Rosen cites several studies that concluded TiVo-equipped households watch 3-6 hours more TV a week than other households.  The author contends that this increased TV consumption leads to lowered alertness, decreased attention spans, and heightened anxiety.

Switching focus to the recording industry, Rosen contends that the original Sony Walkman and the current industry leader, the iPod, have played a similar role to the DVR in how people consume music.  People can easily listen to the music they want, when they want, and can live in “absent presence,” meaning one can be physically present yet isolated to the world around him/her because music is replacing environmental sounds.  Citing research performed by Wired Magazine, Rosen notes that people are attached to their MP3 players because of the control they afford over music selection.  More significant than TiVo’s impact in the living room, the personal MP3 player invades public space – disruption social interaction and creating a society of self-absorbed disconnect.

Furthering the idea of narcissism in how we consume is the creation of the media itself.  A recent study reported in the New York Times conducted by researchers at the University of Kentucky concluded that the lyrics in popular music have become increasing self-centered.  Studying lyrics from 1980 through 2007, psychologist Nathan DeWall identified a trend toward themes praising the individual rather than a group, or couple.  As they hypothesized, the words “I” and “me” appear more frequently along with anger-related words, while there’s been a corresponding decline in “we” and “us” and the expression of positive emotions.  (Tierney, 2011)  Self-referential Songs like Justin Timberlake’s “I’m Bringing Sexy Back” and Beyonce’s “It’s Blazin’” have replaced songs about inclusion such as Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder’s “Ebony and Ivory.”

Rosen’s concern over the negative impacts of personalization devices feels premature.  There is no question that we have far more control over our media than we have in the past. But the author’s vision of dystopic country of self-serving individualists seems alarmist.  Following Fidler’s model, the DVR and the MP3 player are still in a state of flux and penetration.  We don’t know how we will use these technologies in the future or when they will be replaced by something new.  For now, personalization technology is novel and growing.

Discussion Questions:

How does entertainment on demand create a more narcissistic society?

How do you learn about new TV shows and music?  How has this process changed since owning a DVR and MP3 player?

Is new “personalization technology” the best thing ever, or is it irreparably disrupting the quality of the entertainment we consume?

Works Cited:

Fidler, R. (1997). Mediamorphosis: understanding new media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Rosen, C. (2005). The age of egocasting. The New Atlantis, 7, 51-72.

Tierney, John. (2011, April 26). A generation’s vanity, heard through lyrics. The New York Times, p. D1.

This article differentiates between ludology, or the study of games through their form and adherence to genre conventions, and narratology, or the examination of narratives in the medium.  The author argues that scholars have had difficulty analyzing games in the past because they were trying to use techniques traditionally applied to literature or film studies.  She suggests that games are a hybrid medium that has specific form and narrative elements that impact people’s emotions and processes differently than traditional media.  She discusses the commentary that video games make on society and how players’ values and ethics affect their interaction with artificial worlds.

I believe that this article may prove valuable to my term project because I’m considering examining the growth of the gamer audience from the typical 12-25 year-old male demographic to broader audiences.  I will assert that the incorporation of rich narrative experiences have played a role in attracting female gamers like the author.

Brooker, W. (2009). Camera-eye, CG-eye: Videogames and the “cinematic”. Cinema Journal, 48 (3), 122-128.

Approaching his analysis of video games from a cinema studies perspective, Brooker observes how cinematic techniques have influenced video games.  Brooker supports his argument that visual and narrative techniques are finding common ground in film and gaming by suggesting that game conventions are being used in movies like “The Matrix” and film conventions like lens flares are intentionally added to gameplay to convey a cinematic feeling in games.  The article also discusses technical limitations that prevented games from developing narratives earlier in their history.  He concludes by suggesting that games are moving away from using now-traditional cut-scenes to incorporating exposition into actual game play for fully immersive playable “interactive movies.”

This article applies to my term project because of its examination of cinematic technics in games as well as its references to game motifs within Hollywood movies.  It supports my assertion that the two media are strongly influencing one-another beyond oft-shared underlying source material.

Mallon, B., Webb, B. (2005). Stand up and take your place: Identifying narrative elements in narrative adventure and role-play games. Computers in Entertainment. 3 (1).

This article summarizes a study developed to identify which components of video game design factor into achieving the deepest engagement for gamers.  Specifically, the authors aim to assess the importance of narratives, role-playing, characterization, motivation, plot, etc. when applied to a non-traditional media form such as video games.  Testing two groups of gamers in a controlled environment, they seek to better understand how narrative impacts engagement.  Their results demonstrated a need for further study to better grasp conflicts between the game, player participation, non-linear structures, and story.  They conclude that these issues have prevented talented screenwriters and novelists from pursuing expanding their reach into video games.  The authors ultimately express concern over the growth importance of powerful narratives in adventure and role-playing titles.

Mallon and Webb’s study deepened my understanding of the interplay between active, enjoyable game play and the cohesive benefits that engaging narratives can have on the enjoyment of video games.  I plan to follow this with the implications this can have on video game’s growth in disrupting more traditional narrative-driven media.

Postigo, H. (2003). From pong to planet quake: Post-industrial transitions from leisure to work. Information, Communication & Society. 6 (4), 593-607.

This article aims to explain the importance that video games will have in the coming years.  It suggests that analysts and academics interested in how and people spend leisure time (and why) start paying serious attention to gaming as a mainstream medium.  The author summarizes how economics and a global workforce can cheaply develop and distribute games for big profits.  With parallels to the hardware tinkerers in the 1970s that led to today’s dominant computer companies, the article suggests that hobbyist programmers and designers will become increasingly important to the industry.  Interested in why people work for free, the author concludes that innovations will come from those seeking to catch the eye of companies that recognize their value.

My interest in this article is purely for background and the brief history it gives of the video game industry.  It was an interesting read, but may not be essential to my argument.

Tavinor, G. (2005). Video games and interactive fiction. Philosophy and Literature. 29 (1), 24-40.

The article discusses the role gamers play in the development of what the author refers to as interactive fiction. In this medium (which is considered an outgrowth of older video games) the player has a direct and deep engagement with the narratives of the gameplay.  Using the example of “Grand Theft Auto III” the author explains how the act of directly controlling a character’s interactions within the context of a playable narrative elicits differing and additional emotions (both positive and negative) than traditional media of books, movies, or television shows.  Further, these emotions have direct impact on how people play after experiencing them.  The author also discusses the importance of manipulating “props,” within the game world (cars, doors, weapons, and other objects) and how these interactions parallel the positive impact play has on young children.

Most likely, this article will serve as background research for me.  However I can see bringing it into my paper to address the importance narratives play on driving video games further into the mainstream.

Taylor, T. L., & Kolko, B. E. (2003). Boundary spaces: Majestic and the uncertain status of knowledge, community and self in a digital age. Information, Communication & Society. 6 (4), 497-522.

This article explorers ideas of what the authors refer to as “mulit-modal” gameplay, which means that in order to complete a game, players must use both in game and real world communications systems to complete it.  The authors focus their attention on a now defunct game called Majestic.  This conspiracy theory video game required players to use real websites, faxes, phones, email, instant messaging with real people and bots, and the game itself.  This sweeping use of technology and real world assets blurs the line between game and reality.  It also relies heavily on knowledge communities to work together to solve puzzles and progress through the narrative.  The article dissects the gameplay to provide insight into how cultural norms are used within the context of a game environment and what effect that has on behaviors.

I plan to use the authors’ critique and analysis of the game Majestic to address the idea of immersion – a powerful concept that traditional media cannot provide and may be a possible future for the medium.  It would be far more challenging for a novel or movie to engross their audiences in a narrative beyond the screen in front of them.

Weil, P., & Peña, N. (2008). Avatar mediated cinema. Proceedings from ACE ‘08: International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (209-212). Yokohama, Japan: ACM.

This article reports on findings of an experiment that integrates documentary video footage within a virtual world to make the film become more “real” for the participant viewers.  Recreating the Guantanamo Bay Prison in Second Life, the researchers want to put audiences, via their avatars, in the prison so they can experience what it would be like to be held there.  This is done in support of the documentary, “Unconstitutional.”  The authors hope to better comprehend how delivering a narrative spatially to an avatar viewership creates identity with that avatar for the person controlling it.  Games have historically paused game play with cut scenes to relay story information.  By integrating the two, the researchers want to create a more immersive experience in which the user remains active throughout, thus removing the passivity of watching cinematics that often result in disruption of the experience.  The article argues that avatar viewing and experience will prove central to evolving techniques of storytelling and narrative.

I think that there is a lot of useful information in this article for the future section of my term project.  More games are eliminating cut scenes or at least allowing players to interact with them in some way to keep engagement high throughout the gaming experience.  As narratives become more interwoven into the actual gameplay of video games, the stories they can tell will get more complex and appealing to wider audiences.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.

In Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, Henry Jenkins asserts that we are in the midst of a major transformation in the way we consume, participate in, and produce popular media.  Both creators and their audiences are expressing themselves in new ways thanks to advances in technology.  A participatory culture is emerging, changing the relationship between content creators and their fans. Social media, transmedia franchises, and accessibility of inexpensive production and distribution channels allow communities of people to interact with each other around shared content.  Although Jenkins’ case studies focus on only the most valuable properties, which aren’t necessarily representative of the wider market, his description of the struggle between “old media” leadership and the new participant consumer is compelling.

Jenkins first focuses on CBS’s Survivor as an example of convergence culture, explaining how network shows struggle with the kind of engagement their fans demand.  Examining what he calls “knowledge communities,” Jenkins depicts a cat-and-mouse game between amateur detectives hell-bent on revealing the show’s outcome, and the content creators that want to keep their secrets.  If the general audience knows the winner before the season starts, those eyeballs will disappear.  So, producers have taken great lengths to protect their show from its most vocal fans.  However, the fans now have much more powerful tools at their disposal.  By sharing satellite imagery, recording and studying episodes, and posting insider tips online, these communities pool knowledge to arrive at conclusions as a community.

Interestingly, if these “knowledge communities” of hard-core fans succeed in spoiling the story ahead of time, they risk cancelling the series prematurely by ruining its emotional appeal and sense of urgency.  Thus their fascination and focus may kill the very thing they are so interested in.  Jenkins concentrates his argument on this struggle between producers and fans.  I would have liked him to take his analysis a step further by addressing the potential benefits these small communities offer the larger audience.  He mentions how these efforts force the producers to change the way they run their show, but doesn’t suggest whether or not this impacts ratings or the quality of the content.

The producers of American Idol have taken a different approach in their relationship with consumers.  They encourage an active and socially networked viewership to watch their show, buy their music, and text their votes.  Their sponsors, product placements, and cross-promotions push the brand even further.  An engaged audience can be marketed to in many ways, creating a diverse set of revenue streams.  However, Jenkins cautions that when fans participate in a consumption community, it heightens their awareness of the marketing process and reaffirms feelings of resentment if a company exploits that relationship. (Jenkins, Kindle Location 1697).  Negotiating the balance between marketing and earning the audience’s trust is a key to successfully engaging a fan base.  Jenkins makes a compelling argument for this approach to cross-platform, cross promotion.  For example, a large part of Idol’s strategy relies on fan voting to encourage appointment TV.  This gives people a reason to watch the show live, interact with it along with millions of concurrent viewers, and discuss the performances the next day with friends – either online or in person.

Shifting focus to movies, Jenkins uses The Matrix franchise to explain the convergence of content creators across various media – all serving a single integrated story.  Most people probably don’t realize that The Matrix was not just a film trilogy.  Comic books, video games, and webisodes contributed to the story.  Theoretically, this should have given fans a vast tapestry of content to digest leading to deeper engagement, which presumably would have generated more revenues for the content creators.  However, the overall narrative story occurred across different platforms, resulting in gaps and missed knowledge for people who only saw the movie or only read the comic books.  In this case, the producers either overestimated how much the general audience truly wanted to invest in their story or underestimated the need for each medium to be self-contained to provide an enjoyable experience to less rabid fans.  What could have been a great experiment in transmedia storytelling ultimately failed to live up to its potential because content producers put too much strain on their relationship with consumers.

There’s no question that transmedia storytelling will eventually take off.  As technology and our ability to traverse single storylines along different media improve, content producers will be able to tell rich, encompassing narratives unlike ever before.  Balancing the delivery of the narrative among different platforms will remain a challenge for content creators.  Jenkins could go a step further by addressing integration of user-generated content into the overall narrative experience.  In a book on convergence, I think Jenkins missed an opportunity to suggest the possibility of content creators and consumers to tell stories together in new ways.

Access to technology plays a big role in perpetuating convergence.  Inexpensive production and distribution channels have made it easier for fan communities to generate their own content based on their favorite properties.  Jenkins identifies the Star Wars franchise as a key example to understanding the delicate balance of rights and control over characters and stories between producers and consumers.  The author asserts that these properties have become so massive and integral to popular culture, that they have become new forms of folk culture (Jenkins, Kindle Location 2901).  As such, fans have taken it upon themselves to perpetuate their new folk culture with fan fiction and elaborate home movies to celebrate their fandom.  Lucasfilm holds a tight grip on fan fiction by shutting down websites and taking legal action when they deem necessary.  But they have extended an olive branch to fans by way of organizing fan film festivals and providing sound effects for fans to use.

Star Wars is an obvious example for discussing overzealous fandom.  However, it is such an enormous phenomenon that it is hard to comprehend how user-generated content could impair its value.  Jenkins neglects to discuss cases in which properties did suffer diminishing returns as a result of an overactive fan base. As case studies, Star Wars and other huge franchises like Harry Potter do not represent the majority of intellectual properties vying for audiences.  While much can be learned from their example, but their reach is so vast that it is unclear just how sweeping convergence is to the entertainment industry.

I agree with Jenkins’ assertion that we are experiencing a convergence between producers, consumers, and media but am interested in understanding the pervasiveness of it beyond niche communities.  The traditionally passive experience of watching TV or a movie may not be sustainable in the near future because consumers have too many options and too many outlets to voice their opinions publicly.  To remain relevant, media producers have to provide multiple points of entry to their ecosystems beyond the television or movie screen.  With unparalleled access to information, today’s consumers want to feel like they’re an integral part of the conversation.  Jenkins lost me a bit when he shifted to politics.  It felt out of place in a book so focused on popular culture.  I recognize that he wanted to demonstrate that lessons learned in entertainment can be applied to politics, but it felt like a stretch.  His use of wildly popular television shows and movie franchises make the content approachable, but the various directions he takes his argument diminished its impact.  Additionally, Jenkins could have taken his research a step further by placing his examples in the context of the overall entertainment landscape of the time.  This would have provided the reader with a better understanding general media trends.

After signing up for Facebook in early 2008, I immediately saw status updates as cries for attention from most of my friends.  Some used them as repositories for their mental diarrhea.  Others likened them to a soapbox that they could use to opine on political or economic issues.  Either way, skipping my “news” feed never felt like I was missing much.  Then I learned about a new service that took, in my opinion, the worst aspect of Facebook and made that its Raison d’être.

I first gained awareness knowledge of Twitter when Ashton Kutcher became its first user with one million followers.  To follow Rogers’ five stages of the innovation-decision process, I think that same moment also represented my persuasion stage.  As Rogers states, I considered  how I might apply this new idea to my present or anticipated future before deciding whether or not to try it. [1]  After a bit more scrutiny, I realized that this technology was not for me.  I’m not sure what it was, because I really don’t have any animosity for Mr. Kutcher.  But the media attention he and the service received made wary of this “innovation.”  Friends who embraced Twitter gave me more insight.  Some used it as a rather unwieldy sort of RSS feed on topics that interested them, others exclusively followed celebrities, and a few just linked it to their Facebook accounts for the sake of ubiquity.

I made my decision.  I would not be joining the Twitter revolution.  The more popular it got, the deeper I dug my heels in.  Mine was a Passive Rejection – I simply chose to ignore this new communications technology without so much as a visit to its website.

But, we cannot predict the future, so I had no way of knowing that an intervening social necessity would require my adoption of this pervasive micro-blogging service.  After accepting entry to the MCDM program, I read through the list if requirements for new students.  Right at the top of that list was a Twitter account.  My stand against Twitter was about to end.  At this point I had to start my innovation-decision process over again.  I revisited the awareness knowledge stage because if I had to use Twitter, I needed to figure out the intricacies of the medium such as hash tags, URL shorteners, and the social implications of following and retweeting.

So, I created a username (a marathon training motivator – GoRun26) and posted my first tweet, “About to run 6 in the rain.”  No one read it, so I was off to an inauspicious start. But, I had reached the implementation stage of my process – I put Twitter to use.  It took eight months before someone retweeted something that I had posted.  I believe that this acknowledgement that I had contributed value to someone else marked the confirmation stage of my Twitter adoption.  Positive feedback made me recognize that this technology could be a viable way for me to communicate.

Truly embracing Twitter will take more time.  I still don’t check it frequently and have missed time-sensitive tweets from friends and my MCDM cohorts on occasion that I would have responded to in a more timely manner had they emailed.  But as more people around me use it as a primary method of communication, I will have little choice but to follow suit.

Questions
1. What makes Twitter a viable alternative to email?  When is it appropriate/inappropriate?
2. Can Rogers’ five stages of the innovation-decision process be followed out-of-order?  Why or why not?
3. Would Twitter be considered a re-invention of texting or status updates?  Could this newer technology make adoption of older ones easier for those lagging in the use of modern communications?

Notes
[1] Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

Thesis: The video game industry has evolved from a casual distraction to deeply engaging, character-driven interactive narratives, while Hollywood has become reliant on similar technology and game tie-ins to drive their business.  The two media will continue to converge until they become indistinguishable.

Statement of Intent – I plan to explore the evolution and growth of the video game industry that I believe can be broken down into the following time periods:

1. Past (1970s – 1990s) – in the late 1970s and early 1980s, games like Pong and Asteroids didn’t have stories, they had actions that users could execute.  These games essentially existed in a vacuum.  Context for bouncing a virtual ball or shooting asteroids was not as significant as controlling the on-screen images.

Through the 1980s and into the 1990s, games took on more cinematic qualities.  Cut-scenes (which later became known as cinematics), in games like Donkey Kong were introduced to give back stories that allowed designers to move the action from one location to another.  These brief, simple animatics gave longer-running games rudimentary stories, if not a bit more cohesiveness than their predecessors.

At the same time, some filmmakers attempted to make their products more interactive through experiments that allowed audiences to choose how the narrative would play out by depressing buttons to cast their votes.

2. Present (2000s) – The proliferation of PC and console gaming give developers more powerful platforms to build immersive worlds with rich characters, render extremely life-like visuals, and use top voice talent from Hollywood.  These changes began to blur the lines between the two media.  A study conducted by Bride Mallon and Brian Webb at Queen’s University of Belfast touches on the social need for this evolution of the two media into a new form of entertainment.  Their research indicated that gamers want the narrative cut-scenes to be interactive and playable as well. [1]

3. Future (2011) – The advent of technologies like the Nintendo Wii, the PlayStation Move, and Xbox’s Kinect will continue to put gamers into the action in ways that once seemed like science fiction.  At the same time, Hollywood is trying to distinguish itself with 3D technology to make movies more immersive.  However, even with this latest defensive move, movies remain passive viewing experiences.

Source

[1] Mallon, B., Webb, B. (2005). Stand up and take your place: identifying narrative elements in narrative adventure and role-play games. Computers in Entertainment. Retrieved on April 12, 2011 from http://portal.acm.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/results.cfm?coll=DL&dl=ACM&CFID=17705589&CFTOKEN=49532661