Skill set and knowledge are important

This week's lectures draw our attention to videogames and persuasive games. It becomes clear that for someone to say videogames cause violence and the society to rupture is flawed. The problem of early videogame researches was that they were not correctly done and were sponsored by institutions which have their own political agenda. The difference between representational violence and actual violence is important because a player who is skilled in killing and murdering in games does not necessary have the courage to carry a weapon. More importantly, videogames are designed to have winners and losers at the end of the gameplay and players have to kill in order to win. Context always matter as there are stories and narratives inside the game, which may influence what violence mean in videogames.

For games which have a procedural rhetoric, I come to think that the player must also have that skill level or intelligence to comprehend what the games are wanting to say. Players themselves have to figure out how the underlying system works. In SimCity for example, the player has to figure out how the taxation system works and link it back to the actual world. Similarly in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, eating might just be another game element that the player has to be concerned with. It requires a further level of thinking to link this element to real world social concerns, the relationship between low income and high fat fast food, poverty and hard work, etc. It also highly relates to how these games are designed or framed in order for the players to explore the rhetoric.

At times these representations in persuasive games might be over-exaggerated and mono-focused for the players to see the effects of the decision-making during gameplay. How many times did I play Monopoly and said to myself this is not how the society and capitalism works right? Similarly the Shadow Hearts game mentioned by Maddi might have taught certain aspects of Japanese culture. However, people have to be extremely cautious in dealing with the educational content in games, particularly what is real and what is unreal, and whether there are misrepresentations.

An Unintentional Education

Assassin’s Creed II did not teach me how to be an assassin, despite what game critics such as Jack Thompson might think. It also never succeeded at teaching any obvious lessons through procedural rhetoric; there were cries of conspiracy theories and terrible science-fiction truths about the universe, but they weren’t enough to make me question my own government or deeply consider censorship.

What Assassin’s Creed II did do was teach me about the Italian Renaissance, and the relevant historical figures of the time. Boasting a who’s who of the late 15^th and early 16^th centuries in its cast, and an in-game encyclopaedia on the era, it was a goldmine of information. At the outset, I could’ve told you Leonardo Da Vinci was an unmatched painter—by the end I knew about his medical pursuits, performing autopsies to understand the human body at a time when they were largely frowned upon. I had learnt about the fearless Caterina Sforza of Forli, and the long reign of the Medici family. The entire game opened up a wealth of Italian history to me I’d never even contemplated—and prompted me to seek out more information on the era.

Leonardo Da Vinci: Man of Science!

Outside of the realm of procedural rhetoric and children’s educational games, there’re a variety of videogames—usually historical—that lace in interesting lessons about the world around us. Playing through the Shadow Hearts games, set in a dark fantasy version of the 1910s, I was given brief lessons in Cyrillic, the first Sino-Japanese war, and the myths surrounding the Ars Goetia. Sengoku Basara taught me about the figures involved in Sengoku era Japan, from Masamune Date to Motochika Chosokabe. 999 taught me about Prosopagnosia, morphogenetic field theory, and the existence of the Britannic. The list goes on and on.

All of these games, rather than drawing attention to their educational content, weave it into the narrative—Sengoku Basara, for instance, is a hack-and-slash third person action game, which allows you to fight your way across Japan as dozens of different warlords. Even though the player is aware the game has greatly altered these characters from their factual counterparts, aspects of their lives come into the plot now and again and influence their fictional copies. The aforementioned Motochika, for example, was in reality a very frail and effeminate child, calling him their ‘Little Princess’. Insulted and determined to prove himself, he became a great tactician and a fearless warrior, managing to make his family proud, uniting the four separate territories of his island home Shikoku—the first in history to do so. In honour of these aspects of his character, Basara’s Motochika wears an outfit entirely composed of pink, purple, and floral fabric, befitting a classic ‘Princess’, and tries to unite different warring factions in the story. While, for gameplay’s sake, his real life could not be accurately depicted, the remainders of it produce interesting quirks in his character—and the techniques used to create him carry over to the rest of the cast. This gives Basara a hidden educational slant, wherein the game design, character design, and the gameplay all give approximations of history—whether or not you realise it, you’re learning lessons in Japanese culture as you play.

A lovely purple princess jacket to match Motochika's inexplicable neck brace

While fact checking is a must due to the fictional nature of these titles, I think they do provide examples of an unsurprising yet oft ignored concept—the concept that games, as much as books and film, can be educational without forcing their lessons down a player’s throat. Much as critics may put the medium down as a bastion of unintelligent shoot-‘em-up nonsense, there are definitely games out there that seek to teach without making their approach entirely patronizing or childish. Learning practical information doesn’t stop at Reader Rabbit and Carmen Sandiego, and doesn’t have to be as subtle as in the case of procedural rhetoric. Sometimes, there are facts simply woven into the tapestry of a game’s narrative or play—all that the player needs to do is open themselves to them, and do a little research.

Casual Gaming

When I first took this paper I thought "Nah, I'm not a gamer. I don't play games." Then we had our lecture on casual gaming and I still tried to defend myself saying "nah, I'm not a gamer. I don't play games." I'm sure they call that denial. I suppose I didn't want to be labelled OR even be known as a person who plays games. So I have a confession to make and it seems appropriate to 'come out' on the class blog: I might be a gamer. I downloaded a few games on my phone and just recently have I downloaded two games that have really eaten up my time: Candy Crush Saga and Bubble Witch Saga. I wake up in the mornings and play Candy Crush Saga until I run out of lives and then I play Bubble Witch Saga until I run out of lives. Then hopefully by that time I have a couple more lives on Candy Crush. I was stuck on level 29 in Candy Crush for almost a week and it was killing me - almost like winning level 29 was my highest priority. I didn't think one could become diegetically immersed or intra-diegetically immersed in either of these games. But perhaps I had allowed myself to forget about the outside world and let the game take top priority. Over my uni work, over my social life. Everything. I even go to my boyfriends house and the whole time I am playing on my phone. When people talk to me I don't pay attention because I am so into my game. And then when I can't finish the level I get frustrated and I start to blame the designers of the game for my inability to complete it. A term I think people use for what I am going through is 'addiction'. But I will forever come up with reasons against the argument. 
I would also like to talk a little bit about what we have been discussing in classes this week: Violence in videogames. This of course will be my personal opinion. I grew up playing games like Crash Bandicoot, Tekken, Hercules, and Spyro. Now that I really think about the content of the games, in all cases the player is required to kill enemies that may stop them from accomplishing the mission. But none of them were violent or disturbing. And none of them influenced me in anyway to cause harm to others. Now I go to the net cafe with my boyfriend and his friends and they are playing Call of Duty and yelling at each other and I'm sat there thinking that they are all so weird. In this game they are shooting and killing people. Outside of the space of the game these people are the complete opposite to their characters. I like what Holm Sorensen and Jessen said in the Goldstein article that "the violent elements fascinate some children, but this fascination should not be mistaken for a fascination with violence in the real world. On the contrary, all children in the investigation repudiated real-life violence." I agree with this because children are not always influenced by what they watch on television, or on movies or what music they listen to. Another point to make is that people make choices to play certain games or watch certain things. We can't blame the designers for the way people turn out. Most times you will find that it was their own decisions that turned them into the people they are now. And their decisions might be more influenced by the people they are surrounded by. So instead of blaming the games, maybe people should take a look in the mirror and think about the examples they are being to each other. I'm sure we have more of an influence on others' actions than games do.

Validity of Video Game Studies

As someone doing a BA majoring in film, television and media studies I find I often have to defend what I'm studying. Like how it was relevant to my degree to attend a Warriors league game for Cites of Contest or going on Twitter was relevant for Techno Culture and New Media. So again obviously I have had to defend how playing video games is beneficial to my education... I heard that Te PaPa museum in Wellington is doing an exhibition on Game Masters so checked it out and found out it was true. There are all kinds of cool things to stimulate interest in old and current video games like Space Invaders to Angry Birds. Studying video games must be pretty relevant and important if it shares a building with some of the amazing parts of world history! Here's the link if anyone wants to check it out (looks quite cool!):

What will happen if we look in the face of evil?

There is a lot of anti-violence game leader said Grand Theft Auto series (GTA.) is just a guideline for gang member. The most of evil elements in society like violence, sex and drug are filled in it. In my option, the GTA series is a nice work. The huge virtual space can make the player lost in it easily, thus gives back the corresponding freedom to player. Most of player immersed in the game is not because its violence but the story. You can’t image that one game without any storyline but arbitrary murder for 40 hours. The main part of game is definitely not violent elements, it just a kind of technique which used to develop the plot, it servers for the main story and always changing the form to fit story.

The heroic violence

The violence is not terrible but the consequence of using violence, and how the game world responds for that. If the consequence is not as serious as reality world, probably the player will have a fake sense on using violence. Using violence in the game and escape from punishment made the player more like a hero but not criminal. For example, a player even could escape form military searching after he killed several people in GTA4. Obviously, this kind of non-punishment consequence won’t happen in the real world. Compare with the 4^th generation of GTA, the changing on violence controlling can be found in the 5^th version. The consequence of using violence has been set in a logical way. Thus the player will get a heavier punishment when they killed too many people on the street. The rule in the virtual world is more similar with real world. To keep touch with violence, and understand its consequence, is the most useful way to avoid it. If we just keep the children far away from violent game, once the real violence coming into their life, how they could deal with it. Be familiar with violence in the game, and learn to avoid it is the active function of violence.

But it is also important to notice that, violence could affect how we think of it in a decidedly misguided way. As the sister said in American Horror Story 2, ‘If you look in the face of evil, evil’s going to look right back at you.’ Although we have a critical sight on using violence in game, the negative behaviors still have already been separated. Therefore, they will receive negative message from game violence. Namely: when the people gaze on the evil, they also have been gazed by it.

why I HATE sterotypical view of gamers

I just had a talk of my mother on what her view of the gamer is and to my surprise, her view of gamer is someone like this " 

When I told her not all gamers are fat, she replied " of cause they are not fat, they are thin because they often forget to eat." You see we live in a sad age where worldly view of gamers tend to be shown by those who are OBSESSED with videogames and tend to think all video gamers are in otaku level. That is really dangerous thought to be have around. Why? well if that is the case of many non-gamers have on gamers then no one will take us seriously or even view us in negative light. They might  even think us as a people in need of psychological problems.  I want to say that that is far from the truth and infact I believe that there are some people who are obsessed in EVERY media. I think it is bit unfair to say that gamers are people with no life outside of games just cause their are some people who act in this way.


another thing I will talk about is what others have talked about in previous posts. Society tend to think video gamers as a person who has been brainwashed into thinking nothing but a violence in game. I remember watching a news in Korea talking about " dangers of videogames" as it can be seen through Starcraft. They said that it shows " too much violence" to kids as units that gets killed ( especially Zerg and Terrans) have blood splitting all over the place. It was ages ago ( when I was in grad school) and I remember news announcer  calling that game as " mindless violence." I think this shows how the society sees videogames and gamers in general. To most non-gamers  violent videogames could be seen as violent activity just existing for enjoyment of violent obsessed people ( kinda like Roman gladiators in ancient Rome.) of cause like it was talked about during the lecture and tutorial these people often ignore the difference between fictional violence and the actual violence.  It seems that people just assume that all video-gamers are just some sort of violence loving puppy-kicking people who just enjoy violence for the sake of violence.

Also like it was said on Tuesday lecture the fact that games are " for kids" damages views on gamers as well. I know a lot of games seems to be immature plaything but there are some complex games as well. Like many fantastic real time strategy games like Age of Empires series or starcraft needs user to use their brain in order to win. what about games with deep storys like Mass Effect series. All of these games I believe can be seen as mature games for the adults. If non-gamers have the views that games are for the kids and only kids and manchild will play it, then I fear that their would be little hope for gamers to advance as a medium.

overall these are some common misconceptions that many non-gamers have on gamers and while some may be justified to some gamers- I feel that it would be bit of a stretch to place it to all gamers as gamer society are wider then this.  Like any other media gamer society has a people who are obsessed and people who can control it. Like people have said before, I think it may be just a people not understanding this new medium.

Glitches

This may be off topic, but something which was brought up in the lecture reminded me of something which has struck me previously.

Kevin brought up the difference between cheats, which were intended and included by the designers, and then there are glitches which are exploited. I find glitches and their reactions from both developers and players very interesting, in that once they are identified by players you would expect them to be sorted out. However, there have been examples of incorporation of glitches into gameplay by both developers and players to varying outcomes.

One example which struck me comes from Fable 2, in which an achievement is offered for luring a bandit into an area which will cause him to be stuck due to a glitch. This is a strange dynamic, as it presents an awareness by the developers of the presence of a glitch, but instead of treating it as something to be ironed out it is utilised as part of a challenge in the game. The player is then expected to break immersion and deal with this element from outside the game world, but this is often already the case when players are striving for challenging achievements. A video of the achievement in progress can be found below.

http://ah.roosterteeth.com/archive/?id=432&v=more

The flipside of this is players finding and utilising glitches to various ends. My example presents players in the, at the time, newly released Team Fortress 2. The ‘griefing’ video presents players exploiting glitches in the game to create havoc for both their teammates and enemies for entertainment. This ranges from simply getting in the way, and teleporting teammates to dangerous locations, to exploiting a glitch which traps the entire team in their base. This is then taken even further when the griefer turns the home base into a game show, in which players must answer trivia questions over voice chat before he will allow them to leave the base and start the game.

http://youtu.be/JUPzN7tp7bQ?t=4m6s

Violence and Immersion

It always annoys the crap out of me whenever someone tries to blame violent video games for tragedies like school shootings. I'm sure it annoys most of the people in this class. But I think the biggest problem with these supposed activists (*cough* Jack Thompson *cough*) is the fact that a lot of them don't actually play video games themselves.

For my assignment I have been playing a lot of Goldeneye and Donkey Kong 64. The other day though, my flatmate was watching me play in the lounge and I felt inclined to apologize to her for all the cursing I was doing while playing. Her presence made me a tad self conscious of how I appear while gaming and as a result, I noticed how often I swore at virtual opponents. My most common expression was probably "Die cunt!" whenever I disposed of a villain.

Seriously though, I'm not a psychopath, you won't see me running around uni shooting people with guns or throwing coconuts at them yelling "Die cunt!" as I do so. Now, if someone were to watch me play, someone who doesn't play many games, he/she would probably think I was displaying violent tendencies. They would think that playing that game put me in a violent state of mind. However, they don't realize that once I turn off the console, I don't act that way in the real world. For them to understand my experience, they would need to play the game and know how it feels to be immersed in a video game.

Many of these figures who are against video games are people like parents and teachers. Many parents don't actually play many games themselves and see their children exhibiting behaviour like mine. And I know for a fact, having played multiplayer games online and been to netcafes, that there are people who are worse than me when they game. Basically my point is, even though people of our generation, a lot of which play video games, disapprove of such theories, it's hard to blame some of these people for coming up with these opinions if they've never played many games in their lifetime.

How games teach us (magic school bus and WoW).

This week we learnt about how and what games teach teach us and this topic immediately reminded me of my favourite game as a child growing up. It was the Magic school bus CD Rom, a game based on the Magic school bus books and TV show. The television show was a big hit and I know many kids watched it at home, but it was the Magic School Bus interactive game that was the real deal! Putting in the Cd ROM on a windows 95 computer, and having to wait for loading time etc is showing my age but it is also showing how games have improved since then. Nethertheless, its still a hit with the kids now (a quick Google search confirmed this) and it was my absolute favourite computer game growing up and I used to wake up extra early just so I could get to the computer first and play this game.

I think we can absorb information from anything easily, that’s why its a big deal when anything in media show any aspect of prejudice and privilege. I feel that games can teach us a lot about absolutely anything in so many ways.  Games are so captivating and according to Researchers, they “have said that the appeal of games is that they provide two central elements: 1. achievable challenges, and 2. progressive rewards.”

The Magic School bus game had different locations that you could explore and there is always a goal for the player.  My favourite was The Magic School Bus Explores the Ocean (1995)-(1998) The class takes a field trip to the beach and you get to explore the ocean and follows clues that lead you to the treasure. A Nintendo DS version was released in 2011 which is cool to hear. It was a great game because I really did feel like I was part of this magical field trip to the ocean. You were learning as you went along, but this didn’t occur to me because I was having so much fun. The best part was the interactivity and choosing where to go and what to do. You really did absorb the information because that was the only way to get into the next level so you had to remember everything that you learnt. I also loved how the characters were the same from the TV shows. This was an important feature that made me feel apart of this cast of characters that I really loved and adored, as their strong personalities translated well to the game version.

It is nice to hear that Magic School Bus titles have been released on Nintendo DS and the Leapfrog educational system. Understandably, technology has expanded and there are many more options of games to play but the magic school bus really was something new and different when I was young, hopefully younger kids can also experience the magic.

Go to this website and check it out if you would like to relive your childhood (kind of).

http://www.scholastic.com/magicschoolbus/

 I think learning and games can expand to mainstream games too. Lets take for example, world of war craft, which is one of the most popular games in mainstream game playing. It is a known for its multiplayer role type of gaming and involves the completion of quests  which are missions that the player must compete in order to get to the next level (most games involve this). These quests often have a level of difficulty, which only true gamers can pursue. So many people think that gaming is about pushing buttons, but in order to succeed, gamers need to really study and devise strategies to overcome challenges in WoW. A casual game player like me for example, would struggle with Wow because I lack the skill and understanding of a game that requires such. It is a game suitable for the hardcore gamer.  Also, as the games go on, the characters become more developed and they gain various talents and skills. Characters can learn skills essential in real life such as  archeology, cooking, fishing, and first-aid.

The most popular games require players to join as teams to defeat the enemy. This has become a popular form of gaming, and what World of war craft is renown for.  The gamer learns  about communication and cooperation, a skill that is vital in school, the work place, and even sport. A lot of the communication involves backing up teammates, directing them where to go, and more. At uni, a lot of degrees involve group assignments where everyone must work together to make the project successful. Without knowing how to utilise teamwork, co-operation, and communication you really will struggle in the real world yet most gamers learn this through games such as WoW.  Also, gaming encourages a high level of intellectual engagement, especially a game like World of war craft.

Here is an article about how war craft can teach you about improving ROI.

http://www.christopherspenn.com/2012/11/what-world-of-warcraft-can-teach-you-about-improving-roi/

When it comes to video games and learning, I think young kids are the most suited to this. We learnt about digital natives, who are  “native speakers” of the digital language so they are a lot more immersed in technology then any of us older kids. They grow up on technology like the Ipad; therefore the games on there can be really beneficial. Kids are used to being entertained in ways where they are actively involved in that activity. Kids have so much more options now with learning by playing games on the ipad. The apple store is filled with thousands of games, most which would have some educational benefit.

I have toddler niece who plays on the ipad. Not just reading, but playing games and learning at the same time. It intrigues me that she can use this piece of equipment so easily, yet she can’t even talk yet. The games that she plays are Monkey preschool lunchbox, which is a snazzy little game that you play memory, find the different fruit, play with puzzles and get awarded with stickers. She also plays

 Preschool memory, which is like electronic memory. There are also a number of games that she plays which have some benefits.

My 10-year-old niece is a big fan of Sudoku and scrabble. Two games that require intense thinking and outing words together. Other favorites include Jetpack, Angry Birds, Swampy, Cut the Rope Fruit Ninja and Temple Run. Games that are your average game but require a level of thinking, skill and concentration. Something she has learnt from playing these games.  There are also a swarm of other games suitable for kids. They might not be your average video game but they are educational.

 There is a book titled What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy by James Paul Gee, which I had a quick read of and found interesting.

The synopsis from Google is this:

 "I want to talk about video games--yes, even violent video games--and say some positive things about them." With this simple but explosive statement, one of America's most well respected educator’s looks seriously at the good that can come from playing video games. In this revised edition, new games like World of War Craft and Half Life 2 are evaluated and theories of cognitive development are expanded. Gee looks at major cognitive activities including how individuals develop a sense of identity, how we grasp meaning, how we evaluate and follow a command, pick a role model, and perceive the world.”

Also, I found this site to be quite interesting too.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/20/132077565/video-games-boost-brain-power-multitasking-skills

And there is the reading the other week written by Patricia Hernandez about how video games have taught her about gender, representation, nationalism and identity: something I would never associate with video games. Fall out 2 is the game, which enabled Patricia to learn about aspects of her because the game in a sense reflected her own life. Her starting character in the game Christa could be modified in a way where she wasn’t sexualized and she had high intelligence. When her elder in Fallout 2 told her that the fate of the entire village rested on her shoulders, it represented her life as a whole. A young Indian, who was expected to get a degree for the good of her family.

Fall out 2 was also filled with choices, something Patricia didn’t have in real life.

She was able to seduce woman on the game, something that was considered taboo in real life, as well as argue with men. She also stayed married in Fallout 2, despite the obstacles and choices she had to divorce- a lesson that can easily be adapted in real life.

 So in general there are many ways to find games that benefit us. I do believe that playing games can benefit young people the most, by teaching them skills that they can adapt to in the real world. It is not just about leaning a sense of cooperation teamwork or skills and concentration, there is a whole range of spectrum that we absorbed from video games, but it depends on the individual and their own lives in a sense. I learnt alot growing up playing Magic school bus, but other kids may have not. the games I play nowaday Temple run probably isnt as educational but it does require alot of concentration- something that I should and can adapt to in real life. 

Sex in GTA

There is a procedural rhetoric in GTA which offers some strange ideas about relationships and sex. Having sex with a prostitute in the game increases the health bar. So after you've taken a fair amount of bullets (or you’re even bleeding out), it makes perfect sense to visit a sex worker. There’s no economic sense in visiting one if you’re not in need of medical attention. Other ways of replenishing health in the game include eating food and visiting a hospital. However, eating too much of the mainly-unhealthy fast food will make you fat. This will undo tedious gym work and negatively affect the stats. You won’t be able to run as fast or for as long and will be less effective in hand to hand combat. Visiting a hospital also has its problems. You are often far away from them, you’re usually much closer to burger joints or sex workers (if it’s night time). Also, though it’s more expensive, sex works better at healing a player than the work of any surgeon or nurse. After sex, health is restored to 125%. This extra 25% can exclusively be achieved through sex. So through the games processes and rules, the player learns that sex is very valuable. In GTA San Andreas, girlfriends were also introduced. You meet a girl and pick her up from her house to take her on dates. Once you have taken her on enough dates you get to sleep with her. The dates are annoying and you have to work to keep her entertained depending on what interests her. In the poor, black neighbourhood your girlfriend is controversially into going on drive byes. Another girlfriend gets a thrill out of nearly dying. These dates are either extremely boring (taking her to dinner or hitting ‘X’ in time to dance) or risky (shooting random gang members or being chased by the cops). However, after you drop her home you are encouraged to keep going when the ‘progress with girlfriend’ bar increases. When you get this to full you get to have what the game values most, sex. Sex with your girlfriend (who the game forces your player to get to know) has exactly the same effect as sleeping with a prostitute. It is therefore sex that matters and not the relationships themselves. If you get progress even higher, your girlfriend will give you a gift. By this time, you have probably played through enough missions to move to another area of the map. You've got what you needed out of the relationship, sex and a perk or item. In the new area, you will come across a new potential girlfriend. You have learnt the process and know the rewards of dating her so you are encouraged. The other girlfriends are shallow and immediately judge you. If you’re not strong enough for them (or fat enough in one case) you are immediately rejected. You can date multiple girls and get health restoring sex and other perks. What is most disturbing is that if you go back to your old girlfriend, she is still there and still believes you are together. If you haven’t visited one in a while, a progress bar will decline and possibly encourage you to go back.
The game therefore prioritises sex and material goods over the benefits of sustaining one long term relationship. The dates are boring; the female characters are two dimensional in their personalities. In the view of the game, you should aim to get as much sex as possible (with many emotionally connected girls simultaneously) because that’s what you work towards, what you pay for. It gets priority.

Word Count: 606
Lloyd Thomason (2691650)
This week I contributed to 'Critics, the trolls for videogames'

Just Give Me a 'Link'

“There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people…”

One could be forgiven for assuming at a glance that the statement above is condemning a hard-drug black market, or perhaps the domestic sale of assault rifles of the likes used in recent and reoccurring American mass-murders. In fact the statement is a condemning of the (American) videogame industry for its continued and seemingly intensifying depictions of violence, mouthed by Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

The quote is from an article that attempts to draw out some irony in the NRA’s creation of an iTunes app-store game based around the firing of various weapons at a virtual shooting range, a game that appeared for retrieval online shortly following this statement being made at an NRA press-conference.
 

The article can be found here:

http://www.dailytech.com/NRA+Blames+Video+Games+for+Violent+Crimes+Then+Releases+Shooter+Game/article29661.htm

However this post is less concerned with the perceived irony and has more to do with the harm to truth that can occur when social science is used in the service of deception; here LaPierre suggests that while ‘guns don’t kill people’, videogames and the industry that fuel their consumption are somehow responsible for instances of mass-murder and general gun related violence in the USA.

It is a hefty claim, and one that has not yet been convincingly proven according to Jeffery Goldstein, author of “Violent Video Games” from our course reader. Goldstein remarks that while a number of studies from around the world conclude in videogames having an effect in bringing about aggressive behaviour in players, many others have found no such link. Too much variation and inconsistency exists in the breadth of research for assertions to be made on the danger of videogames in this respect. Yet figures like LaPierre insist on placing heavy blame on this medium, evident in the article linked above.

The issue here is not simply of fallacies and the misuse of the academic world for the purposes of frontmen such as LaPierre. The incredibly damaging act is this focus of attention on particular and potential causes rather than addressing problems from a variety of angles. I’m left wondering why finger-pointers have historically homed-in on specific forms of media as causes of violent behaviour, such as Television, Film and now Videogames. Surely a rise in the popularity of significantly violent videogames over the last 20-30 years would be met with an equivalent rise in aggressive behaviour. The opposite is true at least regarding youth violence, as was pointed out in Tuesdays lecture,

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/12/20/violence-and-videogames-we-look-at-the-studies-cited-in-the-aftermath-of-sandy-hook/

Asserting the validity of videogame play causing violence and aggression is in my view a scapegoat diverting attention from vast deficiencies in American mental-health support, GUN CONTROL and perhaps even in the general state of modern societies where the only way marginalised individuals perceive that they can leave a mark on the world is by committing atrocious, highly publicised acts of violence.

I think there’s also value in considering the social context of gaming; it can be isolating, immersive to an anti-social extent as well as a powerful form of escapism for the more tormented of souls. Do videogames produce violent behaviour? Or are unstable, isolated individuals with psychopathic tendencies just more likely to engulf themselves in graphic fighting games and first-person-shooters?

Either way it seems forms of media will continually be attacked when spokespeople, Politicians and leaders need to appear as if they’re solving problems.

Reference:

Goldstein, J. (2005). "Violent Video Games", Handbook of Computer Game Studies. available at theunshaven.rooms.cwal.net.

Too many theories

So games theory are a growing field where people are paying more attention to the affects and limitations behind the actual game play, this puts a position where a definitive line draws on which you believe. What is the definition of persuasion? Does educational purpose labelled games really 'educate people' like a lesson in a school or a lesson in life? How is this even measured without severe uncontrolled testing, where an outcome is not affected by any other factors such as the observer being known to the testing subject.
What I can see from computer games from childhood such as the click and react type games where the adventure depends on the child's interactivity such as 'Madeline', where a few french words are being tossed into your mind and used in the appropriate times. Games develop a child's need to pass the level or bet the computer, a sort of early competitive person growing inside of you being expressed in the game. Days where Mega man with your siblings is a favorite pass time as being a team, (one shoots, the other jumps and walks around) is entertaining enough until he finds he does much better without you.
The educational part?- quite unsure, but the parents seemed to think games covered with numbers or ABC's looks good enough. Ian Bogost is correct about learning game play while playing the game as systems give different codes in order for a player to win or complete the game. These sets of skills are either adapted while playing, taken from previous similar game experiences and used to quickly learn and adapt how the game works. Possibly the amount of time taken for a gamer to adjust , or be 'good' at a certain game may be measured. But what it is measured against is an entirely different problem.
Decisions within a game heavily affect the game out come, although some games are intended to have only a few ways to get the goal, the ultimate achievement that began game play. These choices a person makes ties in with the mood placement theory, where your personality is an important part in not only what games you choose but how you choose to play it. This is also another unexplored area not only in computer games but also films, TV ect. Only print mediums such as books and magazines have tackled this genre.
An example of a game which provides choices but needs wit or cunning-ness to understand how to complete the levels are these, first off they seem challenging but after a few levels of understanding the wacky way to solve an almost obvious puzzle, you start to enjoy the questions that come next or the next obstacle.

http://www.addictinggames.com/puzzle-games/superstacker2.jsp

http://www.addictinggames.com/puzzle-games/theimpossiblequiz.jsp

http://www.members.shaw.ca/gf3/circle-the-cat.html

http://www.bored.com/game/play/151368/The_Red_Button.html

http://armorgames.com/play/4309/this-is-the-only-level

The only thing I hate is the fact that you have to start all over again if the time limit exceeds your brain power.

Game Persuasion

Am I the only one who has found the last four sets of lectures a bit confusing and contradicting?

On one hand, games re-iterate racist and sexist ideologies in society. On the other they DON'T promote and persuade players into violence. However, they DO imitate, or promote a certain ideology through their system of rules. Agency means these games are critically interacted with, hence not 'brainwashing', but if players aren't aware of the inherent systems in the game and what they could signify in a wider context, then isn't the game, in fact, brainwashing them? And if they're subconsciously learning skills without being aware, isn't that also the same thing? This also doesn't account for people who play games without actually realizing the biases, ideologies and critiques, perhaps because they're too subtle or perhaps because the players just aren't playing attention. After all, who wants to think about politics and global issues where they're sitting down in front of a computer to relax, and play?

The biggest problem I had was with Tadhg Kelly's reading, which just seemed full of contradictions. He mentions 'Fate of the World' as an example of a game that doesn't persuade, bu allows the player full agency to ponder the consequences of their actions. But ultimately, isn't a game that bases its premise on the fact that climate change is a real and current threat, pushing an agenda and persuading the player to believe it (ignoring the issue about whether or not it's fact)? Much in the same way that a war game that portrays war in the style of WWII (as described in readings 8C), promotes a particular ideology relating to war.

Moreover,what if people misunderstand unintended consequences? What if what people consider to be 'unintended claims' aren't unintentional at all? For example, Kevin stated 'Vampire: Bloodlines' in class as a classist game because it placed more value on people of 'greater status'. However, what if the game presumed that players would give less value to the lower class, due to inherent societal ideologies and put the system in place so that gamers would think twice about sparing a homeless person's life? Ok, that migh be a bit of a far-fetched interpretation, but as far as the concept of polysemic texts goes, it's not an entirely aberrant reading.

Maybe I'm just not understanding the concepts properly. I can absolutely concede to that, and would love for somebody to explain it further, in a way that would answer the above questions. But I'd just like to think that all of these concepts aren't quite so black and white, and that there might be a few more grey areas than we may have given due credit for.

Representations and empowerment

Last week’s lectures on gender reminded me of the games of Tekken with my brothers. As a multi-player game, it was one of my only chances to get to really use the PS2 (as it had been bought by them, they always got first priority). One thing that sticks out in my mind was trying to select a character. I wanted to play a girl- and one that I felt had the closest approximation to myself. After taking a brief glance at the five or so girls on offer, I settled on Anna. She was young with a fringe and brown hair, like myself.

Before I could lock in my choice, however, my brother took it upon himself to warn me against it- “Nah, don’t choose Anna. She’s the worst player in the game. Plus she’s a prostitute.”

I’m not entirely sure I really considered the implications of Anna supposedly being a prostitute, but I remember feeling slight indignation that game developers had chosen to make the worst player in the game female. What didn’t occur to me was another troubling inference- that perhaps Anna wasn’t really the worst player in the game. Perhaps she was merely perceived to be so, not taken seriously by virtue of her gender and supposed profession. Either way, the fact that I felt I could no longer identify with her, and because I didn’t want to lose to my brother, I moved on from Anna, choosing Christie instead. After playing Tekken for a while, I actually got pretty good at it and could beat my brothers. Yet after years of the PS2 and Xbox being the boys’ terrain, I can say with certainty that those wins were far more satisfactory when I played as a female character. Beating my brother as a female character felt more like I myself had beaten him, rather than a simulated character. Moreover, it felt like I had won two battles: the fight itself, yet also the perceived gender odds.

For me, this is at least part of the reason why there is the gender divide in gaming culture and why this needs to change. Games are often empowering in the sense that they allow players to explore an ideal self, or achieve things that you might not be able to in “real life”. Empowerment is aided by true sense of embodiment and connection with a character. So why should females be limited in this empowerment by the preponderance of male characters? Why should we feel that if we choose a female character, we’re disadvantaging ourselves? Why should female options of an “ideal self” often inexorably mean being a sex object? The same arguments can be made in regards to race. Empowerment is an important affective dimension of games, yet shallow, stereotypical representations are limiting the industry’s potential for such affect. As Kevin has said, privilege is often blind. Whilst those within the white male circle, who have always had their “ideal selves” catered to, may not personally feel the difference in having racism and sexism addressed, this should not mean that the potential for others should be ignored. 

Sexism and the videogame

Video games are predominantly male authored and oriented, in terms of the games that companies produce, the plots and points of view, and the sex of the players themselves. This has given rise to the idea that sexism is rife within the gaming sphere. It is true that sexism exists in virtually every facet of society, and video games are no different: games have not enhanced sexism but have simply adopted elements of it that exist within society and the media. In this sense, I have seen examples of blatant sexism and subordination of women in several games. The old Duke Nukem game that was released in 1996 is a prime example. The player has the option to hand strippers cash and Duke Nukem is heard to say “shake it baby,” etc. These are the only females that appear in the game and it is this portrayal of women that I find to be a real cause for concern. Nowadays, however, things are more complicated. Perhaps the most popular and well known female character in the gaming world is Lara Croft in ‘Tomb Raider’. She is a puzzle for all simplistic perspectives, because she is both sexual object and active and even aggressive main character. That contradiction is hard to address. So on the one hand, Lara Croft epitomizes everything that is conventionally considered attractive in women, from having large breasts to a perfectly shaped body. That makes her more similar to, say, Hercules, who is also scantily clad and epitomizes the perception of the ‘perfect male form.’ On the other hand, Lara Croft is independent and far from subordinate. She does not fit the mould predicted by Yi Mou and Wei Peng in “Gender and Racial Stereotypes in Popular Video Games,” in which they write that women are usually perceived as subordinate and passive dependent to men, with sexual relationships as central in life.” At the same time, her physical appearance is designed to convey the idea that she is a ‘sex object.’ Finally, what becomes even more complicated is that Croft is an avatar of a male player, who is both looking at her and gaming with her. What do we make of that?

Ruh Roh

Sexuality, Games and Mulvey

I now understand how the topic of sexism in gaming can provoke vomit-inducing rage. While initially unaware that this type of sexism extended past the usual Giganta-Breasts and online ‘tomfoolery’, the extent to which the sexism can become angry and fetishised was shocking. Watching the Anita Sarkeesian video hit me right in the feels.

In particular, the example of the Dead Island: Riptide dismembered and largely endowed torso reminded me of Laura Mulvey’s writings on the ‘gaze’ of cinema. The theory is that there are three ‘gazes’ in cinema, that of the viewer, the camera and the characters. In classical cinema, the gaze is gendered in the way that the male protagonist is the ‘bearer of the look’, while the female protagonist connotes ‘to-be-looked-at-ness’. All three gazes of the camera, audience and the protagonist combine into one single gaze which looks at the woman object. This is obvious in film as well as in video games. A typical shot introducing a female romantic character in a film consists of a tilt up from the feet to a mid-shot from breasts upwards. This focuses on the ‘areas that count’ should we say, while showing the elongation of the body and mimicking the way anyone would look an attractive woman up and down in the street. This can be seen in the trailer for Hitman Absolution. The shots of the women focus and linger on the usual sexualised areas. The problem I had with this portrayal of violence against women was the way in which the violence was sexualised and fetishised.

 In Mulvey’s work, she discusses the phenomenon of ‘Fetishistic Scopophilia’. Scopophilia is the way in which ‘looking’ is a source of pleasure. The premise in film is that a female character is a threat to a male character, specifically a ‘castration threat’. The female form is a representation of this fear of castration and disempowerment of the male. In response to this, there are two defences the male can take: that of ‘Voyeuristic Sadism’, as in the punishment of the female for the potential disempowerment, or in the way of ‘Fetishistic Scopophilia’, he can ‘disavow’ the castration threat by turning it into a fetish for their exploitation.

We can see both of these at work in the Hitman trailer. These women are punished for their participation in the action which could have (literally) removed his manhood. The fetishistic scopophilic aspect of this is the lingering of the gaze on the slow-motion shots of these women being killed and visually violated in a sexual way.  While I may be taking the trailer out of context, and I may be simplifying Mulvey’s work a bit, it cannot be denied that the sexualisation of violence in the media hints at the way that rape and violence against women is still not seen as ‘that big of a deal’.

Boobs are great every once in a while, but there are some serious issues that have to be addressed with all this ‘monstrous femininity’ malarkey. Sexuality shouldn’t be scary or horrific or fetishised, though only in  a fantasy world would there ever be a gender-neutral game space.

-Sophie McGuinness

Laura Mulvey (1975). "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema". Screen 16 (3): 6–18

Some links:
Confronting online sexist abuse:

http://www.notinthekitchenanymore.com/

Not that I wrote about it, but still interesting: ALIEN as a rape series

http://www.cracked.com/article_18932_alien-film-franchise-based-entirely-rape.html

Race on Screen, a further investigation

After an interesting discussion in both the tutorial and lectures last week, I posted a blog, a note about colour on screen - blogger,  about the issues of race in videogames. Following these conversations I decided to do a bit of digging myself around the vast labyrinth that is the Internet. Interestingly I came across a couple of interesting points and readings. 

In the United States the FBI release information every year about the statistics associated with crime. Linked are the findings from 2010,USA Crime 2010, and 2011, USA Crime 2011. One interesting extrapolation is the potential link between youth crime, videogame play, economic stability, and the representations that are being played out in game play. Further research is definatly required.

MoniqueWeijermars also posted in the blog earlier about how a young Norwegian Boy used tactics learned in WOW gameplay to save him and his sisters life, Moose evade. What I find interesting about this is case and point for games teaching the youth habits and ways of being through simulated gameplay and virtual role playing. Thus to next point about the effects of representation.

In a study named "The virtual census: representations of gender, race and age in video games" Dimitri Williams, Nicole Martins, Mia Consalvo, and James D. Ivory consolidate that theory around race representation, and suggest that:

"Theoretically, a media environment in which a particular type of person is highly represented will result in a viewer or player who is more likely to recall that type of person rather than a different type of person...[and] that a medium’s general depiction of a group does have an impact on its users’ perceptions of that group, albeit moderated by their real-world experiences." (Williams, et al. 818) 

Concluding we note that how a race is represented, or subsequently not represented, plays a huge part in the reception that that race has by the viewer. Therefore the onus is on game designers to accept responsibility for the environments that they portray in their virtual world.

Lets us pursure these measures into the future.
Dane, out.

The Wii: Good or Bad? jkin263

Seven years ago the Nitendo Wii was released, to much fanfare and to some hatred as well. But why all the fuss over this gaming system? Kevin mentioned in class that the Wii was unpopular with many so called "Hardcore gamers" because of it's simple controls and requirement for "Hardcore gamers" to be as much of an amateur as people new to video games. However, when I look at the Nintendo Wii I don't see what some of these "Hardcore gamers" see, the Wii is simply another way of playing video games. Rather than button  mashing around 10-12 buttons on a Playstation or a Wii the Wii has very few required buttons such as the A or B, however it's legitimacy as a video console should not be questioned. When we play games on the Playstation or the X Box all we are doing is pressing buttons in response to a simulated environment. The Wii actually requires people to do physical excercise which I think proves it's legitimacy. I welcome any "Hardcore gamers" to play boxing or tennis on the Wii and see how "simple it is". The computer that plays against you constantly becomes more difficult to defeat as your points increase on the 'Wii Sports' game, and your visual and hearing senses must always be alert to respond to the computers actions when you are playing say tennis, as the computer will continue to become more responsive and have faster hits with the tennis racket. Physical exercise is never a bad thing, the Nitendo Wii is a way of enjoying video games without being sedentary. The Wii is a god send to any video game player who may be ( like myself) a little overweight, and wants to enjoy exercise. The Playstation and the X Box as fun as their games are, do not offer any physical activity, unlike the Wii, which is why the Wii deserves it place as a legitimate video game console.