Analysis of "Asteroids" a game by Atari

Asteroids was an Arcade game designed and published by 'Atari Inc.' in 1979.

Composition

Being created very early in the video game era, Asteroids visuals are quite simple so not much can be said about them. Composed simply of a black screen,  with white lines representing the shapes of the ship and the asteroids that the player is tasked with destroying.  The games focal point is the ship you pilot across the screen, a simple triangle that allows the player to focus on the direction the ship is facing.

Space/Depth

Asteroids uses a simple 'wraparound' screen effect to allow the player infinite moving space whilst maintaining a static screen.

Colour

As mentioned previously Asteroids only makes use of the colours black and white. It would be a few more years before Atari developed a system that allowed coloured lines to be drawn. It seems fairly safe to conclude that there probably isn't a "deeper meaning" to the games palette.

Light

Asteroids has no lighting to speak of, something that is again down to the technology available at the time.

Style

The best that can be said about Asteroids 'style' is that it is very minimal, or you could go as far as saying it's an abstract take on the perils of space travel, I personally can't see us flying through space in big triangles but that's just me.

Influences

Asteroids was released in 1979, a time when cinemas were rife with science fiction epics such as the Star Wars films, leading me to believe that this had a big influence on the games design.

Subject, Theme & Meaning

Asteroids is a game with minimal story so again there isn't much to be said here. As far as characters go it could be said your character is the pilot of the ship you control but of course there is no mention of said person at all in the game. Set in space, asteroids simply seems to depict a ship fighting to survive in the midst of an asteroid field whilst also being attacked by the odd alien spaceship.  I'm of the belief that given how early in the video games era this game was made, there really wasn't much thought for deeper meanings such as symbolism. Again the only issues and controversy that surrounded Asteroids was that it apparently became almost too popular for its own good when several hundred units had to be shipped in 'Lunar Lander' (another Atari game) cases.

Context

Context has a profound effect on the meaning that one can decipher from something, in this case a game. I've mentioned on several occasions that I think the fact that this game was created in 1979 means that the "deeper meaning" that we see in many games these days was not present. The context here is the year in which the game was made, 1979, which as far as I know was very early days for video game development, hence why I take that to mean that there was not much in the way of hidden meaning and deeper meanings. Games are far more complex today than they were 30 years ago.

Personal Response

My main reaction when playing Asteroids is a feeling of nostalgia, even though the game was around long before I started playing video games. In its simplicity it shows us how far video games have come, whilst at the same time proving that these games that some may go as far as calling "primitive", can stand the test of time and still be fun to play. The high score mentality lives on to this day it seems.

Thoughts on "Nature and significance of play as a cultural phenomenon". An extract from the book "Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in culture" written by Johan Huizinga.

In this article I’ll simply be taking what is written in the text in front of me, bit by bit and summarising my understanding of what it is trying to say, finally giving my opinion on said summary. Here goes.

The first page simply states the fact that play is something that occurs naturally among many different species besides humans and has done so since long before we became a cultured race. It also seeks to define why we play, but doesn't seem to accept any of the suggested causes written. Personally I believe that it is a very important part of a childs growth and development. Play will teach them vital social skills, among many other things that will help them in later years.

                Next up is a discussion on the seriousness of play, and as I understand it what has been said is that in a very Schrödingers cat sort of way, play can be both serious and 'non-serious' at the same time, depending on what is being played, a sound observation that I agree with completely. Going on from this is a section about some words we can loosely connect and group together, it mentions that these words are 'resistant to any attempts to reduce them to other terms' which I'm not entirely sure I understand.

                From the next couple of pages plays lack of strict rules for when it can be started or stopped are discussed. That is to say it can be initiated (or ceased) at any time and is always done so voluntarily, at ones leisure. A simple observation with which I also have no criticisms.

                Moving onto the next topic which is in short that play is not 'real', again a simple observation but one that carries some weight in that play can, certainly in the cases of children, be immersive to the point of completely absorbing the player. Play becomes their reality, if only for a short time, and I think this is something we can all relate to in some form.

                After this comes a topic I'm not entirely sure I understand,  or at least the part mentioning the 'disinterestedness' of play trips me up a bit. It mentions that play is not 'ordinary life', which is similar in a way to saying that it isn't 'real', I take this section to be referring to playing sports and more formal/adult play, in which case it just seems to be stating the obvious.

                Over the next page the limitations that are put in play in regards to time and space are discussed, for instance all play takes place in a set arena, be it a field, table or board. Thankfully only briefly mentioned it allows me to move onto the next topic which is how ordered play is, in reference to the strict rule set that accompanies most scenarios.  The focus of this section is how delicate the 'play-state' is and indeed how easily it can be broken by someone who doesn't follow the 'rules' that govern it, how it spoils the game and destroys the illusion. The people who break the rules will sometimes be doing so purely based on a desire to succeed in play, something that is covered over the next page.

                The penultimate topic is how a community or club can form around some games that are played, be it purely to further the enjoyment of said game outside the realm of play, or simply because a group of people prefer to play a game a different way to the norm.

                The final topic is the topic of 'secrecy', which as far as I can understand is either simply in reference to having something to call your own and keeping it that way, or having secrecy as part of the play itself by having players dress up to disguise themselves, throwing anonymity into the mix to make it more interesting.

                Overall I think this article states a lot of obvious facts, but in truth they are only obvious to me after having read about them.

THIS IS A TEST

Problem, Google?