45 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/26/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>On March 11, video game publishing mogul Electronic Arts will release its newest attempt to combat the runaway success of Activision-Blizzard’s Call of Duty franchise. Called “Titanfall,” it is a first person competitive online multi-player shooter science fiction game. Currently, hype levels for this game are at a fever pitch, and with glowing first impressions toward what material the press and enthusiastic gamers have gotten their hands on, many are calling it a system-seller for Microsoft’s new Xbox One.But all this excitement for the supposed next big thing has also exposed a culture clash between the ranks of “hardcore” and “casual” gamers.While the battle between video game consoles has existed since the inception of the medium, the lines seem to have shifted to the very soul of what gaming should be.Microsoft appears to have pegged its hopes with the “casual” crowd. At its reveal conference last year, the Xbox One appeared to be focused nearly exclusively on media services such as cable television, fantasy football and Internet browsing.This is in contrast to the reveal of Sony Computer Entertainment’s PlayStation 4, which emphasized features pertinent to video games.Because of its wide target audience, the new Xbox has come under fire from hardcore gamers for seeming to pander to the “dudebros,” or a person usually imagined as the stereotypical frat boy only willing to play shooters and sports games.Naturally, this has caused cries of elitism from supporters of the Xbox.Regular potshots from both sides make up the morass dubbed the “console war.”“Titanfall” steps into this madness by promising to be the killer application for the Xbox One. Discounting its release on the Xbox 360 and PC, it appears to be an engaging and competitive game that EA is billing as the next big franchise.The criticism of this game is mainly directed at how the setup is eerily familiar to Call of Duty. In fact, “Call of Duty with robots” is the primary derisive nickname directed toward the game.The outcry is not necessarily with the game but the mounting fear, as discussed above, that the game appeals primarily to those who may not necessarily be gaming all of the time.Apart from the mechs and a new parkour mechanic, not a lot has been changed from the standard first-person shooter formula.It is this perceived lack of innovation that infuriates those who are more artistically inclined.This extends to other franchises such as Ubisoft’s “Assassin’s Creed,” the aforementioned “Call of Duty,” and Microsoft’s “Gears of War.” All of this being said, many are excited to see a new intellectual property hit the scene at a time when console gaming seems to be locked in a rehashed cycle of shooters and more shooters.It’s not clear whether “Titanfall” will be the major hit Microsoft hopes it will be or if it’ll turn out to be a stale reworking of tired tropes.I’m certainly looking forward to finding out on March 11. mjsu@indiana.edu
(02/13/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Many outlets would have Americans believe that it is solely the fault of the Republicans for peddling an “obstructionist agenda” that interferes with important priorities like immigration reform. I am in full agreement that the current immigration system does not function very well and needs to be replaced, or at least overhauled. I also believe that the United States was, is and will continue to be a nation of immigrants, and they should have the right to come into this country to pursue the American Dream. Yet I cannot say that Republicans are the only reason why immigration reform is currently stuck in the House of Representatives. The truth of the matter is that Democrats have done just as much to poison political relations between the two parties, making such a feat extraordinarily difficult to accomplish. As readers of these pages will know, the atmosphere in Washington, D.C., is to the point where both parties cannot be seen acquiescing to one another. It is in this stalemate that immigration reform was thrust upon Congress. After seeing the poll numbers from the 2012 presidential election, some conservatives believed the best way to win back Hispanic voters was to tackle immigration head-on. But after a year that saw scandal after scandal as well as a seemingly embattled president that has proved just as recalcitrant, I am quite surprised that the push back against reform has not been worse. Many House Republicans will be facing reelection later this month, and the odds of being challenged from the right are real. Look at what happened to Senator Richard Lugar getting beaten out by Richard Mourdock in the Republican Primary for the 2012 Indiana Senate Race. The Obama Administration has shown no qualms about using executive force to get around Congress. For example, the perceived activism of executive agencies such as the Justice Department hacking the Associated Press’ phones or the Internal Revenue Service applying severe pressure to conservative nonprofit groups has left many Republicans dismayed at and unwilling to compromise with President Obama. Additionally, the use of executive fiat to delay implementation of many parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has left conservatives on edge, worried that the president will keep parts of bills he likes while delaying or sabotaging parts that he disdains, effectively creating a new piece of legislation much different than the one passed.As if that was not enough, some may remember what happened in 1986.Then-President Ronald Reagan signed comprehensive immigration reform into law, but the result according to conservatives was amnesty to illegal immigrants and no lasting impact. Republicans continue to have a not-too-far-fetched concern regarding the President seeking to have millions of voters eternally loyal to the Democratic Party. Republicans would never seek to pass a major reform that the president could take credit for, so there is no incentive for them to do so.All of these factors led Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, not to bring up immigration reform until the end of the year. And to perfectly frank, I cannot blame him for doing so.— mjsu@indiana.edu
(02/11/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Advertising can say a lot about a company, as it shows how the company wants to be portrayed. Consequently, the importance of inclusiveness in advertising campaigns cannot be overstated. Case in point — Coca-Cola’s Super Bowl advertisement celebrating diversity in the United States was a touching and beautiful work of art, set to be remembered as one of the truly amazing Super Bowl ads, right there with Apple’s 1984 Macintosh spot. However, the unmatched brilliance of this ad has been the target of a lot of criticism. These detractors believe everyone should learn how to speak English and the GLBTQ community should stay out of the media. These critics should have been mollified by another advertisement that night.Jaguar ran a 60-second ad entitled “British Villains,” directed by Academy Award winner Tom Hooper (“The King’s Speech”) and starred Ben Kingsley (“Iron Man 3”), Mark Strong (“Sherlock Holmes”) and Tom Hiddleston (“The Avengers”).For the ad, the three men dress and act as the epitome of class and grace, which are hallmarks of a classic Holwood antagonist. In the ad, Strong flies in on a private jet, Hiddleston arrives in a helicopter and Kingsley dresses himself in a tuxedo. As Jaguar is a British brand, it would make sense for them to advertise with men of such high stature. But this opens the brand up to charges of racism.The answer lies in the underlying premise of the car that the advertisement promotes. Jaguar has always been a premium brand that has to distinguish itself amongst several competitors such as BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Lexus. Because of its British pedigree, associating itself with such well-known actors would seem like a wise move. The problem lies with the chosen actors, who are all white males. One can only conclude that since Jaguar seeks to identify its product as exclusive, it has used the most exclusive group of people possible to serve as ambassadors of the brand. This means Jaguar seeks to identify exclusivity with being a white man of Western European descent. We have come so far from the idea that small cliques of the oppressors are the go-to group for depicting high class. Look no further than Rolex’s endorsement deal with professional golfer Tiger Woods. After all the progress the U.S. has made, the idea that such an ad would still be socially acceptable boggles the mind. Apart from the one woman who served as Mark Strong’s assistant, no other minorities were represented in the 60-second ad. The days of only white people appearing in advertisements are dead.In light of this travesty, the Federal Communications Commission should mandate minorities get their representative share of airtime in order to truly represent the new U.S. Only then will we rid ourselves of the scourge that is white privilege in this nation.Alternatively, one could avoid overthinking it and interpret both commercials as really cool.— mjsu@indiana.edu
(01/28/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The entire point of cultural exchange is to have two parties respectfully introduce one another to various aspects of each other’s lives.Common ground and mutual understanding are key, and both parties must take special care to avoid treading on topics of contention. There were two such exchanges between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in recent years.One was the New York Philharmonic’s concert in Pyongyang, North Korea, in 2008.The other was Dennis Rodman’s visit to North Korea.Rodman’s trip, while noble in its goals, was a complete disaster and conflated politics with the intended vision of his ambassadorship.In Greek History, the Ancient Olympic Games were meant to foster a sense of community between the varied city-states that comprised Greece as we know it today.Fighting between the city-states was banned.We know the games back then were still forums for politics and bouts of infighting, but the ideal was one that was replicated in 1896 with the first ever modern Olympic Games.Since then, the Games have not escaped political overtones, with the 1936 (run by Nazi Germany) and 1980 (Carter’s protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) games standing out in particular.The ideal should, and has always been, celebrating human achievement regardless of politics and ideology.More closely related to Rodman’s latest trip is the “Ping-Pong Diplomacy” that presaged a visit by then-United States President Richard Nixon to the People’s Republic of China.Similar aspirations apply towards music.Yet, like athletic competition, classical music never has truly shed the realities of geopolitics.But a universal hope towards a united — rather than divided — humanity certainly was a guiding principle for many.Witness Beethoven’s famous exhortation in Symphony No. 9, “Alle Menschen werden Brüder” (“all men shall become brothers”).In that sense, Rodman and the New York Philharmonic were united in their vision: to open up, or at least promote, understanding between the two nations.The results and official communications between the two visits could not have been more different. Rodman seems to have gone to North Korea to boost his own stature, while the New York Philharmonic was sent an official invitation by the North Korean government.Ultimately, while intentions are well and good, Rodman labeling himself as the go-between the two countries is counterintuitive to his supposed mission.Statements exhorting President Barack Obama to give Kim Jong-un a call on the basis that they both love basketball, or proclaiming he would do everything in his power to free imprisoned American Kenneth Bae do nothing to further cultural exchange.It is of course a given that Mr. Bae should not be imprisoned and held on trumped up charges of conspiracy to incite a rebellion. Any actions to try and secure his release are indeed welcome. But by opening his mouth and seeking to oversell himself, Mr. Rodman has done nothing but aggravate his supporters here and made himself into a laughingstock.Art and sports are indeed critical to our cultures, but it is very easy to take things too far in the process of cultural exchange and quickly jump into the morass of foreign policy.An orchestra that played a concert in North Korea was praised for simply bringing its music to North Korea, and rightly so.Rodman and his entourage should be lauded for bringing basketball to North Korea, but his attention-seeking ways should not have a place or any credit in initiating a détente between North Korea and the U.S.— mjsu@indiana.eduFollow columnistMichael Su on Twitter@MichaelSuIDS.
(01/22/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Already known throughout the gaming industry for his avant-garde and experimental approach to video games, David Cage and his French video game development studio, Quantic Dream, have stirred up a fair bit of controversy with their work. “Indigo Prophecy,” “Heavy Rain” and “Beyond: Two Souls” embody Cage’s vision for “interactive drama,” or games that play more like interactive movies.At the PlayStation Meeting on Feb. 20, Cage’s section of the keynote was focused on how the new hardware of the PlayStation 4 would help video-game developers convey emotions that hitherto have been impossible in video games. Of particular contention was a slide that showed the increasing polygon count characters in his games experienced.Polygon count is an indicator of how accurately a shape can be molded in a computer-generated world.Indigo Prophecy’s characters contained 1,500 polygons, while the lead character in “Beyond: Two Souls” contained 30,000, for example.From there, Cage’s subsequent tech demo was of an old man’s head, of which he spoke at length about how he would be able to evoke emotions like never before in gaming audiences. Many have lampooned his speech, boiling it down to “polygons equal emotions.”But a more nuanced view is necessary to understand what Cage is saying.Polygons are a tool to capture more subtle expressions in an actor within computer-generated images. For Cage they are essential. His style of game is one that combines the production techniques and conventions of cinema with player choice.In that context, conveying subtle emotions is critical to having a game like “Beyond: Two Souls” accurately convey Ellen Page’s performance.While the game itself received a mixed reaction, critics were unanimous in praising Page’s acting.That being said, these critics do have a major point when decrying the near-obsession with technology and polygon count that Cage’s philosophy embodies.Other games have brought extremely emotional experiences to the table independently of the Quantic Dream school of thought.“Last of Us” wove a compelling and provocative character drama within the framework of a traditional video game.Even further removed is “Journey.” The game used minimalistic game play, superb art direction and beautiful music to achieve what some would call a near-religious experience.Cage believes technology allows him to achieve what was never possible on previous hardware, and this is indeed true of every game developer.Take a look at 2001’s Grand Theft Auto III, which allowed for a three-dimensional open world game for a series that was previously impossible due to hardware limitations.In that sense, Cage has decided that higher polygon counts are essential to his games and his philosophy of gaming, allowing him to advance the medium further by his estimation.That’s what he means, rather than the idea that more polygons mean more emotion.— mjsu@indiana.edu