Session five

One of the most interesting discussions in Hollywood Gamers is the discussion of intertextuality.  The notion of intertextuality draws from literary theory and media studies. Audiences have relationships to characters and texts that go beyond what is in the text. This concept covers a range of these relationships. Brookey shows how this notion can explain videogames and industry-wide practices. He shows how these practices are shared among videogame and film industries for the economic and commercial reasons. The word synergy captures these reasons well.

Brookey, drawing on writings by John Fiske, makes a distinction between primary textual materials (actual content of games), secondary texts (materials that are used to promote the games) and tertiary texts (content generated by fans and consumers). Intertextuality, in Fiske’s definition, describes the relationship among primary, secondary and tertiary texts. An additional distinction is made between intertextuality that is produced by fans and interpretative activities and intertextuality that is produced by the media creators themselves. Intertextuality that is created by media producers contributes to the kind of specialized knowledge that invites more consumption of media created around the original text. This is one effective way, as Brookey says, producers create fan cultures “from the top down.”

A factor that leads to further creation of fan cultures and increase in the creation of user-generated content is digital media or new media. Media industries have realized that digital media are important in addressing fans, as Brookey argues. “Digitextuality” is a term that helps us understand this context better: new media have contributed to “new interactive protocols, aesthetic features, transmedia interfaces, and end-user subject positions” (Everett cited in Brookey, p. 73).

Once again, what is unique in Brookey’s presentation is that he shows the commercial features and economics of the industrial practices in film and videogame industries, the aesthetics of the games, and the choices available to audiences are related in specific ways.

Mel Brooks satirizes intertextuality as he comments on “merchandising,” where “the real money” is made from the movie! 

 

Fourth Session

Technology, business, Hollywood and gamers

In Hollywood Gamers Robert Brookey explores convergence in the film and videogame industries. His analysis explains this convergence in terms of technological developments and business practices. The important technological innovation that allowed convergence was the development of DVD. The game industry initially included two markets: the home gaming and arcade games. These two markets diverged eventually because of the initial technological limitations.  Home games were often another version of the successful arcade games. The home versions were not as appealing because they did not use laserdisc technology, which allowed a more dynamic visual presentation. Although laserdisc technology was meant to be an alternative to VCR, which was the vehicle for home viewing of film, its performance as a technology was not without problems. The development of DVD technology allowed the convergence of home videogames market and the film viewing experience at home.

Brookey argues persuasively that business practices and other commercial incentives were equally important to this convergence. Some of the examples of these practices include the following. Both film and video game industries rely on popular genres and conventions in order to reduce financial risks of up-front costs.  Both industries try to develop franchises. A successful film could mean a successful game while sharing some of costs in development of ideas, products and marketing. These franchises, as Brookey shows, become significant points of convergence. Both industries tend to appeal to the same audiences in terms of demographics when they are marketing their products. The similarity in packaging for videogames and DVDs means they can be put on similar shelving spaces. Their proximity in retail stores also helps with marketing. Using a similar or identical image as cover for one can be a great advertising or marketing device for the other. This visual marketing is an element of synergy that has allowed these two industries maximize their profits and minimize their financial risks.

Brookey’s analysis clearly demonstrates how the economics of these industries and the available technological developments determine how and why we as audiences and consumers have the choices that we have.

 

Third Session

Advertising and videogames

As I read Ian Bogost’s discussion of advertising I was curious how he would relate that discussion to procedural rhetoric and videogames. He offers a typology of advertising in his discussion of advertising and videogames. The first type is demonstrative advertising: these give direct information and emphasize the functional utility of the products and services being advertised. Infomercials are the latest example of these. The second type is illustrative advertising: these advertising give indirect information about a product, emphasizing the social and the cultural context. An ad illustrating speed in order to suggest the “liveliness” of a product, according to Bogost, is an example of this type of advertising. The third kind is associative advertising: this kind of advertising also gives indirect information (about the intangible aspects of the product or service). However, if demonstrative advertising aims for a mass market appeal, associative advertising aims for a niche market appeal. This type of advertising is related to “lifestyle marketing.”

How do videogames use these types of advertising? For demonstrative advertising in a videogame a product is used, providing direct information. For illustrative advertising a product’s existence and its “incremental” benefits are communicated. For associative advertising the product is associated with a lifestyle or an activity that the game represents. Bogost argues that although associative games are the most common, demonstrative games utilize the most productive procedural rhetorics.

Bogost suggests that advertising in videogames started with Tron and E.T., as the first film/game tie-ins, and games like Kool-Aid Man, although product placement in media have a longer history than that. As videogames and advertising have developed over time, according to Bogost, the interest in advertising is about an interest in videogames to reach to a particular consumer rather than an interest in the unique properties of the medium.  This means “advergames” have become associative marketing strategies. In other words, the advertisers are after “gamers” as a niche market.  

Here is a video on product placement in film, TV and games.

Second session

Procedural rhetoric

Ian Bogost's project is an important contribution. He clearly shows the expressive power of videogames in a unique approach to rhetoric. He shows that visual, verbal, and written rhetorics cannot explain the unique properties of procedural expression. He is interested in showing how things work. As a subcategory of procedural expression, he is interested in videogames. For Bogost, procedurality is about creating, explaining, or understanding processes. A computer's ability to execute a series of rules is understood as procedural.

We should remember procedure should not be viewed negatively. What I find interesting is the point that Bogost makes about the logic that structures behavior in all cases. Commenting on Weber's observation about mechanization and rationalization, industrialization (or its machines) "act as medium for expressing this logic."

According to Bogost, a procedural representation, which is a form of expression that uses processes instead of language, explains processes with other processes. The analyses of videogames he does in this project describe the function of processes.  Bogost argues that procedural representation "requires inscription in a medium that actually enacts processes" instead of just describing them.

What all of this means for me is that the concept of rhetoric I had in mind is put in a larger context. By offering his views on procedural rhetoric, in a way, he comments on all types of rhetoric. I had never thought about processes and the kinds of rhetoric that might be able to explain them. Classical rhetoric, which deals with oratory, deals with words. Contemporary rhetoric has covered other aspects beyond words (that includes images for example). What both contemporary and classical rhetorics have in common is that they both deal with technique, according to Bogost. They cannot explain or account for procedural representation. Bogost talks about digital rhetoric and how it might move in the direction of accounting for such representation.