GUARDA ANCHE TU...
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
Linsey Dawn Rottweiller
La console unica: una questione di accessibilità culturale
E 'since it is also useful to remember that knowledge and information does not hold all the excuse of the availability of a software system and its "exclusive" after its devaluation economic (price) over time (perhaps because of 'introduction of a new console) because the use of a work of art gaming years after the time of its release (as well as a film or a disk), undermines the strength of reflection social / cultural / political current historical moment in which the same appears on market (without resorting to the decline of ludo-appeal because they exceeded technology-related, discussions and cultural ferment of the forum in the online communities which over time is reduced, etc ...).
This is also one of the reasons why video games exclusive of a given system, focusing on wars, for example, tend not to focus on current issues that would consolidate only in the short term (and only for those who just can now afford to buy the game owning such a system), preferring instead to insist on hot moments of the past history, or science fiction with its space-time coordinates relative, ie elements easily recognizable over time as deposited in the popular imagination (eg . Gears Of War for Xbox 360 and Resistance: Fall of Man for Playstation 3 as both "Humans vs. Aliens").
So today's "war" format is one of the many reasons pernicious able to hide the limitations of the game culturally understood.
is in addition to these limitations make it impossible for players to come together online, sharing the gaming experience and social networking made possible thanks to Microsoft's Xbox Live service and Sony's PSN. While sharing the same network concept and global communication, the two communities de facto (and talk of millions of users), while playing the same game does not come into contact with each other, for the simple fact that the same software running on different platforms.
addition to the exclusive supply proprietary software on machines and then there is an "exclusive" of the usability of Web space, rowing against the principle of accessibility and global communication assumed the birth of the Internet (Web of culture and idealism) thus explaining space virtual earth is privatized as a property of physical and (most severe) is characterized by an absolute lack of communication between the parties.
From this point of view would be far more appropriate and forward-looking games of the current platforms (and past and future that will be), do not push gamers-only commentators to talk about console war between the platforms have the titles "exclusive" the most interesting (extolling this or that console owned), but leads us to reflect on their own "exclusive" gray area represent the industry in terms of accessibility culture, it is a war "exclusive" only for the giants of the owners of a system, but lost at the start by the end user who can not afford, and therefore can not access (even a little) in what could perhaps find interesting.
Ultimately, it is certainly difficult to imagine the feasibility of a multilateral agreement to eradicate the economic position of imperialist and historically acquired existing hardware manufacturers and software giants such as Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony. Adopting a common standard in order to create software that can be read by any system, more or less economical, which will enter the market (the console only as a playback system standards, such as various DVD players for example), it is something far from being realized. The analysts' views on the matter, they are gamers or not, is in fact divided on several fronts analytical, all equally interesting. One of them sees
positively with the current hardware competition, competition as a synonym for compulsive force able to push software companies to exploit their resources, fostering technological leaps and the quality of software. According to this approach, a single standard of playing videogames might hinder technological progress, extending the life cycles between a standard and the next because of the producers would tend to make the most of platforms installed (as well as for home video).
Here is additional to the discourse on the average quality of the offer which would tend to shrink due to the large publishers, with no adjustments for multiple platforms, would tend to minimize the costs of developing titles that follow in creating, updating the at least the previous offerings (also via displacing small software house with all the initial problems related to marketing, for example).
Despite the validity or otherwise of these hypothetical scenarios, the important thing is to continue to keep in mind that the game at the present time, there is a medium easily accessible by all fans as cinema and music, since the various systems which enable it to fruition the "exclusive" hold a discriminating power can curtail the scope of cultural, rather than enhancing it.
From this point of view the joint effort for a single platform should not be seen as access to a unique, powerful and limitless possibilities, but rather for the possibility of a priceless point of view of knowledge, to encourage the 'cultural accessibility to all the interactive video experiences, thus making sure more varied and certainly adheres to the current historical moment much of the video game production, without fear of leaving anybody behind.
In short then NO, you should not need to buy everything at once, referring to the platforms on the market today, but instead would be essential that the Game - the gaming experience tout court - then becomes like the cinema, home video, music and the Internet: not just do something that appeared on the market is accessible to all and for all, attracting by the value of its contents without the user having to worry about absolutely machine capable of performing. 
That is the "exclusive" that gray area of \u200b\u200bgaming know
(Louise Brown)
.
The guidelines of the consumer, the crucial point of the many advanced analysis of the VideoGame Industry, are still mired in talk of casual and hardcore gaming, digital delivery and online services, but a point on which the matter is greatly overlooked is the socio-cultural aspect of the game as a tool, as well as entertainment, information and culture for the end user.
Once the accessibility and use of a piece of art was left to the economic possibilities of the consumer: in the works before witnessing the theater you can travel to get to know the city and view paintings and sculptures in museums, the use of ' art has often been reserved for an elite aristocratic literally cut out much of a potential consumer use. It 'true that the possibility of an interest in art (prodotta oltre che fruita) era incentivata in modo naturale dall’educazione della sensibilità di chi poteva permettersi adeguati insegnamenti, ma nel tempo questa posizione elitaria e discriminante dell’arte si è livellata di molto, in quanto la possibilità di fruire dell’arte si è conformata (anche in questo caso dal punto di vista della produzione e fruizione) alle più disparate possibilità economiche dell’individuo.
Tornando ai nostri giorni, e pensando ai contenuti digitali audio/video attraverso i quali l’arte viene riprodotta, oggi sul mercato sono presenti, oltre alle nuove tecnologie Blu-Ray o HD-DVD, alcuni lettori DVD molto economici che integrano la compatibilità in various formats (MP3, DivX, MPEG, etc.) making it virtually read almost all the media on the market. Additionally, there is a preference for accessibility, as you can see movies playable by virtually any system, regardless of the quality of the audio / video player user.
never imagine today the final consumer of having to buy a certain type of player just to watch a handful of movies or listen to some records created specifically to be enjoyed only with that type system (cutting off all other systems on the market). It would be a bit 'as if Sony had the exclusive on the upcoming Will Smith film (shot technique to be played Blu-Ray only) so that they must not have (and can not afford) the reader could no longer enjoy the actor's performance, for example. Since this film, and then art, it is a discourse rather alarming that surely mobilize various cultural spheres.
The Game still far from being an institutional cultural recognition, that speech is still a matter of pure actuality.
It is no exaggeration to say that not all consumers can count among their entertainment systems gaming consoles currently on the market. Moreover, in addition to the sacrifice by the average price of a video game, there is add that the full enjoyment of the highest degree artistic license for the latest generation of PC requires that they are performing behind continuous hardware upgrades, resulting in costs to the end user does not always immediately viable.
is not out of place to recall that the consumer can often benefit from the latest technology on the market only when it becomes economically viable, and that the market tends to delay the offer of innovative products looking to place the maximum possible of what has already product (consider, for example, PCs with dual-core processors sold at high prices even when production of quad-core that was already well begun). This
up which is worth the trouble to reflect, and reason for this discussion, the idea is not unique as the only standard console for playing video games, but rather the accessibility of artistic content, and thus the accessibility to the culture taken as a whole, of 'For example, you now can not afford to make use of works "exclusive" for the various platforms (ie Bioshock, Mass Effect, Metal Gear Solid 4, Resistance, Metroid Prime 3, No More Heroes, etc. ...) do not have a system owner can perfom such software (software in this case intended as works of art).
All this affects the speech "culture" more than you might imagine. Through the experience
Mass Effect for example, Bioware's action RPG in "exclusive" for Xbox 360, the gamer is hit by psychological dynamics of individual responsibility and morality functions supported by the "civilized" compared with other species in the galaxy. Only those who could afford it (so not all) of experiencing Bioware will hardly be denied that such an involvement, also lived in the most superficial level, encourages some assumptions of racial tolerance and acceptance that are relevant today more than just today. Same goes for MGS4, "exclusive" diamond PS3 continues a series has always focused on the moral implications of war on genetic testing in the military and the transmission of knowledge devoted to the formation of individuality. A gamer that is interested only and only to these two experiences is inevitably forced to buy hardware for an average of nearly 7 times such software.
Once the accessibility and use of a piece of art was left to the economic possibilities of the consumer: in the works before witnessing the theater you can travel to get to know the city and view paintings and sculptures in museums, the use of ' art has often been reserved for an elite aristocratic literally cut out much of a potential consumer use. It 'true that the possibility of an interest in art (prodotta oltre che fruita) era incentivata in modo naturale dall’educazione della sensibilità di chi poteva permettersi adeguati insegnamenti, ma nel tempo questa posizione elitaria e discriminante dell’arte si è livellata di molto, in quanto la possibilità di fruire dell’arte si è conformata (anche in questo caso dal punto di vista della produzione e fruizione) alle più disparate possibilità economiche dell’individuo. 
Tornando ai nostri giorni, e pensando ai contenuti digitali audio/video attraverso i quali l’arte viene riprodotta, oggi sul mercato sono presenti, oltre alle nuove tecnologie Blu-Ray o HD-DVD, alcuni lettori DVD molto economici che integrano la compatibilità in various formats (MP3, DivX, MPEG, etc.) making it virtually read almost all the media on the market. Additionally, there is a preference for accessibility, as you can see movies playable by virtually any system, regardless of the quality of the audio / video player user. never imagine today the final consumer of having to buy a certain type of player just to watch a handful of movies or listen to some records created specifically to be enjoyed only with that type system (cutting off all other systems on the market). It would be a bit 'as if Sony had the exclusive on the upcoming Will Smith film (shot technique to be played Blu-Ray only) so that they must not have (and can not afford) the reader could no longer enjoy the actor's performance, for example. Since this film, and then art, it is a discourse rather alarming that surely mobilize various cultural spheres.
The Game still far from being an institutional cultural recognition, that speech is still a matter of pure actuality.
It is no exaggeration to say that not all consumers can count among their entertainment systems gaming consoles currently on the market. Moreover, in addition to the sacrifice by the average price of a video game, there is add that the full enjoyment of the highest degree artistic license for the latest generation of PC requires that they are performing behind continuous hardware upgrades, resulting in costs to the end user does not always immediately viable. is not out of place to recall that the consumer can often benefit from the latest technology on the market only when it becomes economically viable, and that the market tends to delay the offer of innovative products looking to place the maximum possible of what has already product (consider, for example, PCs with dual-core processors sold at high prices even when production of quad-core that was already well begun). This
up which is worth the trouble to reflect, and reason for this discussion, the idea is not unique as the only standard console for playing video games, but rather the accessibility of artistic content, and thus the accessibility to the culture taken as a whole, of 'For example, you now can not afford to make use of works "exclusive" for the various platforms (ie Bioshock, Mass Effect, Metal Gear Solid 4, Resistance, Metroid Prime 3, No More Heroes, etc. ...) do not have a system owner can perfom such software (software in this case intended as works of art).
All this affects the speech "culture" more than you might imagine. Through the experience
Mass Effect for example, Bioware's action RPG in "exclusive" for Xbox 360, the gamer is hit by psychological dynamics of individual responsibility and morality functions supported by the "civilized" compared with other species in the galaxy. Only those who could afford it (so not all) of experiencing Bioware will hardly be denied that such an involvement, also lived in the most superficial level, encourages some assumptions of racial tolerance and acceptance that are relevant today more than just today. Same goes for MGS4, "exclusive" diamond PS3 continues a series has always focused on the moral implications of war on genetic testing in the military and the transmission of knowledge devoted to the formation of individuality. A gamer that is interested only and only to these two experiences is inevitably forced to buy hardware for an average of nearly 7 times such software.
E 'since it is also useful to remember that knowledge and information does not hold all the excuse of the availability of a software system and its "exclusive" after its devaluation economic (price) over time (perhaps because of 'introduction of a new console) because the use of a work of art gaming years after the time of its release (as well as a film or a disk), undermines the strength of reflection social / cultural / political current historical moment in which the same appears on market (without resorting to the decline of ludo-appeal because they exceeded technology-related, discussions and cultural ferment of the forum in the online communities which over time is reduced, etc ...). This is also one of the reasons why video games exclusive of a given system, focusing on wars, for example, tend not to focus on current issues that would consolidate only in the short term (and only for those who just can now afford to buy the game owning such a system), preferring instead to insist on hot moments of the past history, or science fiction with its space-time coordinates relative, ie elements easily recognizable over time as deposited in the popular imagination (eg . Gears Of War for Xbox 360 and Resistance: Fall of Man for Playstation 3 as both "Humans vs. Aliens").
So today's "war" format is one of the many reasons pernicious able to hide the limitations of the game culturally understood.
is in addition to these limitations make it impossible for players to come together online, sharing the gaming experience and social networking made possible thanks to Microsoft's Xbox Live service and Sony's PSN. While sharing the same network concept and global communication, the two communities de facto (and talk of millions of users), while playing the same game does not come into contact with each other, for the simple fact that the same software running on different platforms. addition to the exclusive supply proprietary software on machines and then there is an "exclusive" of the usability of Web space, rowing against the principle of accessibility and global communication assumed the birth of the Internet (Web of culture and idealism) thus explaining space virtual earth is privatized as a property of physical and (most severe) is characterized by an absolute lack of communication between the parties.
From this point of view would be far more appropriate and forward-looking games of the current platforms (and past and future that will be), do not push gamers-only commentators to talk about console war between the platforms have the titles "exclusive" the most interesting (extolling this or that console owned), but leads us to reflect on their own "exclusive" gray area represent the industry in terms of accessibility culture, it is a war "exclusive" only for the giants of the owners of a system, but lost at the start by the end user who can not afford, and therefore can not access (even a little) in what could perhaps find interesting. Ultimately, it is certainly difficult to imagine the feasibility of a multilateral agreement to eradicate the economic position of imperialist and historically acquired existing hardware manufacturers and software giants such as Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony. Adopting a common standard in order to create software that can be read by any system, more or less economical, which will enter the market (the console only as a playback system standards, such as various DVD players for example), it is something far from being realized. The analysts' views on the matter, they are gamers or not, is in fact divided on several fronts analytical, all equally interesting. One of them sees
positively with the current hardware competition, competition as a synonym for compulsive force able to push software companies to exploit their resources, fostering technological leaps and the quality of software. According to this approach, a single standard of playing videogames might hinder technological progress, extending the life cycles between a standard and the next because of the producers would tend to make the most of platforms installed (as well as for home video).
Here is additional to the discourse on the average quality of the offer which would tend to shrink due to the large publishers, with no adjustments for multiple platforms, would tend to minimize the costs of developing titles that follow in creating, updating the at least the previous offerings (also via displacing small software house with all the initial problems related to marketing, for example).
Despite the validity or otherwise of these hypothetical scenarios, the important thing is to continue to keep in mind that the game at the present time, there is a medium easily accessible by all fans as cinema and music, since the various systems which enable it to fruition the "exclusive" hold a discriminating power can curtail the scope of cultural, rather than enhancing it.
From this point of view the joint effort for a single platform should not be seen as access to a unique, powerful and limitless possibilities, but rather for the possibility of a priceless point of view of knowledge, to encourage the 'cultural accessibility to all the interactive video experiences, thus making sure more varied and certainly adheres to the current historical moment much of the video game production, without fear of leaving anybody behind.
In short then NO, you should not need to buy everything at once, referring to the platforms on the market today, but instead would be essential that the Game - the gaming experience tout court - then becomes like the cinema, home video, music and the Internet: not just do something that appeared on the market is accessible to all and for all, attracting by the value of its contents without the user having to worry about absolutely machine capable of performing.
Why exclusivity, by its very definition, can not be excluded also from knowing, and in any case la si voglia mettere questo sarà sempre un male.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)