about Violence in game

all this talk about violence in game and gaming addiction reminded me about the article I used for essay in film and media studies 100 last year ( link: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16099971/ns/technology_and_science-games/t/does-game-violence-make-teens-aggressive/#.URWI6h1WySp ) As it can be seen in this article most people who think violent games have negative effect on children seems to think that their is a direct link between the imaginative violence and the actual violence. What is interesting about this article is that it tries to link the "possible" link between violent videogame and violent activity by looking at the fictions of a brain.

However, despite this article's claim about the link between violence and game, I think there are several problems with this article. The first problem is that the article focuses on the effect of the game that has to the children. There is nowhere in this article that says what older gamers would play. This links activity of gaming to activity of a child. Also this game dose not take the context of the game and it seems to suggest that violent games are all "mindless" violence  This sort of thinking seems to be prominent in every article that talks about the "dangers of violent videogames. when within the context of the playing videogame, it may not be violent as this article makes it up to be. " Also, it seems that it dose not take into account what Jeffory Goldstein had said about violent videogames" Play is a  voluntary self-directory activity an experience that probably cannot be captured in a laboratory experiment   it would seem likely that the experiment was captured in a laboratory situation. This meant like what Jeffory Goldstein had said it would not capture the actual situation as gamers only play game because they want to not because someone told them to.

As seen from above the way people approach the violence in games has quite a lot of mistakes. It would seems that people do not know how exactly games work inside people's mind.

Indie Games

A quick thought as I was going over some lecture material... It is quite interesting how Indie Games have become so popular. I was familiar with Indie music (not the Cassette Nine 'indies'), the people who got together and made records and labels that weren't associated with or funded by the major labels. Indie and festival films have also increased in popularity in more recent times. Until taking this paper though, I had never heard of indie games. Perhaps I have been living under a rock because when i typed the word 'indie' into Google the first search suggestion that popped up was indie games and I found a plethora of websites that had detailed information and reviews etc about these games. For anyone that's interested here is a link to an interesting website where I learned quite alot: http://indiegames.com/index.html

Narrative in Video Games

I wrote my first blog post about how I liked console games more than PC games because console games had or told more of a story than PC games. Then we had our lecture on narratives in video games and things seemed to make more sense to me. I like games where there is a background story because there is a point to the game. But when I was talking to a girl in my tutorial about it she asked me about games such as Tetris and Solitaire where there is no story - they're just games. And I realized that not all games need stories to be enjoyable. And this was the total opposite to how I usually thought about games. I suppose this post could be seen more like an argument against my first blog post - that games needed to have background stories to be fun. I still stand by this point, however, I would consider myself open minded and would now say that not all games need to have stories. I say this because the girl in my class made a good point. Yes, I enjoy playing games like Tetris and Solitaire (even if it is less than regularly), and neither of those games have background stories. There is no real mission to accomplish, no competition, no real goal. And maybe that is what makes these games enjoyable. They are simple and casual and you don't need to be beating anyone else but yourself. You are not going to be spending 30 hours a week trying to complete the games because it takes far less time than that. These games are good clean fun. Because they are not games with characters in them, you are not really engaging with them as if you are inside the space of the game. You can clearly distinguish yourself from the space of the game and everything is ok. I like this. I think this is how games ought to be. When you get to the point in the game where you are so immersed in it that you forget about the outside world, I think that is taking it too far. But others may like that, and that's fine. I think it all boils down to personal preference. I mean, we're only harming ourselves, right? If there is any harm done at all.

Representing the Rainbow

As was briefly discussed in our lectures a few weeks ago, alongside women and racial minorities, gay gamers have it hard when it comes to representation. If a gay character appears, then their entire identity is likely to revolve around their sexuality, or, as with racist portrayals, they’ll be nothing but a stereotype—your classic flamboyant man flouncing around in glitter and tights. Lesbian characters seem almost invisible: girl-on-girl flings are commonly depicted and seen as titillating for the assumed straight male audience, but the participants will almost always turn out to be bisexual and completely willing to engage with the (again, male) protagonist once they’re done fondling each other. There are definitely some canonically gay characters done right—Persona 4’s Kanji Tatsumi, Assassin’s Creed’s depiction of Leonardo DaVinci, and Shadow Hearts: Covenant’s Joachim Valentine, for example—but it’s rare.

So it’s unsurprising that a decent portion of gaming fandom is dedicated to interpreting the unconfirmed sexualities of certain characters, and using them to create interesting ‘confirmed bachelors’. These range from plausible theories to downright bizarre ones, but all of them are united in a single purpose; to add to the number of queer characters and couples for gamers to enjoy, both those looking for representation of their own sexuality, and those who simply find the theories and stories in these fandoms intriguing.

The games and characters caught up in this phenomenon are many and varied. In certain parts of Team Fortress 2’s sprawling fandom, it’s considered entirely plausible that The Medic and The Heavy are in a romantic relationship—the two characters are depicted together in most official videos and art, in game they’re inseparable due to their complimentary roles in battle, and Valve, the game’s creators, give some small nods to the possibility. You’ll receive things like ‘Beaux and Arrows’—an achievement for the Sniper class given when he kills a Heavy and a Medic assisting each other; and a set of matching hats, the Officer’s Ushanka and the Gentleman’s Ushanka. Furthermore, the Medic’s hat’s description advertises it as a way to ‘let the officer in your life know you’ll always be right behind them, with a Medigun and a matching wardrobe’.

Art by DarkLitria

 The Metal Gear Solid games have implications that the series’ main protagonist, Solid Snake, could be gay—Snake ostracizes himself from society until after Metal Gear Solid 1, when he starts living with Otacon, a tech-savvy man he meets over the course of the game. The pair share lengthy conversations about the nature of love, and adopt a child together shortly before Metal Gear Solid 4. While Snake is depicted with a female love interest for a short time—Meryl Silverburgh— he leaves her after realising they’re unsuited to one another, and never specifies what drove the decision. There are easter eggs hidden across the series where the player can take photographs of men and send them to Otacon, who offers to print them off for Snake 'if he likes them so much’. On top of all this, the voice actors for both Snake and Otacon have admitted to playing their scenes as love scenes, adding to the subtext substantially.

"Hal and Dave, that's a good one. Maybe we should take a trip to Jupiter?"

Meanwhile, lesbians interpret representation through characters like Fang and Vanille from Final Fantasy XIII. The pair share very close physical contact, with Fang at one point lifting Vanille’s skirt without her permission and to no complaint. They also interact in a way largely consistent with that of romantic lead pairs from the other Final Fantasy games: Fang’s purpose in the game is to protect Vanille from physical harm, while Vanille tries to defend Fang from her forgotten past, which she believes will hurt her if remembered. This lines up with the romantically paired protagonists of Final Fantasy VII, Cloud and Tifa, who went on a near-identical quest, with Cloud trying to save the world (in line with Fang trying to save the party from being killed) while Tifa guarded him from remembering their teenage years together, realising some of the memories would damage him. In mirroring what previous FF instalments used to define heterosexual love, Fang and Vanille make themselves into a credible homosexual pairing.

Placement of Vanille's hand here has raised questions (see the comments)

While each of these examples can be seen as joking pandering or unintentional implication, there is something to be gained from interpreting characters as homosexual: appropriated representation. Where gay gamers cannot normally find characters with relatable relationships, they can make their own. This sets the gay gaming community apart from other minority groups who are unable to meaningfully alter the narratives of the stories they experience and love to include lacking representation. If gay gamers wish to project their sexual identity onto The Medic to create meaningful parallels to their own lives, they are able to without contradicting any established information about him; the same goes for Solid Snake, and for Fang; unlike, for example, black gamers, who cannot take the text they are given and interpret the physically white characters as matching their race.

This creates an interesting problem of its own, however: if gay gamers are free and happy to create their own homosexual alterbiographies in games, is there incentive for game developers to include more gay characters in the built-in plots of their products? Adding to their ranks would doubtless be helpful, increasing exposure of the gay community to people outside of it and dispelling some of the myths and stereotypes games currently perpetuate. But can it possibly be warranted, when the community seems content to take existing characters and interpret them in an inclusive way?

I’m curious to know what people think—how can the gay community balance their current methods of finding representation with pushing for official depictions of gay characters? Or, alternatively, can the decision to interpret characters as homosexual be seen as a quiet push for more—filling a need for representation at the same time as displaying to others that there could definitely be a lot more of it if developers tried? 

Addicted to success

Videogame “addiction” has so many negative connotations. Yes gamers may become socially inept and introverted; yes gaming may be a way to leave the real world and its problems; escaping into a world of fantasy and surrealism. But what about how this addiction could be beneficial to the player, as in it might have a large influence on the person and actually helps them in life.

 The term “addicted” may be used from an outside perspective, blatantly labelling someone heavily engrossed in an activity yet “Obsessed is a word the lazy use to describe the dedicated”and through this compulsion and dedicated though comes success, success at whatever you mull over day after day. There is a book by Malcolm Gladwell called “Outliers: The Story of Success” which examines the factors that contribute to high levels of success. Throughout the book, Gladwell repeatedly mentions the "10,000-Hour Rule", claiming that the key to success in any field is, to a large extent, a matter of practising a specific task for a total of around 10,000 hours. If we look at gamers who are dedicated to playing, some have turned out to be professional gamers, participating in eSports around the world and earning big dough. For the League of Legends Season 2 World Championship, the grand prize was $1 million. Videogames are taken rather seriously when reaching high level competitive play and only the devoted can handle the pressure and skill required to get there.

 Douglas Gentile, a leading scientific expert on the positive and negative effects of media, does claim that videogames do provide beneficial effects. He says "playing video games is neither good nor bad. Existing research shows that they are powerful teaching tools, and therefore we need to harness that potential, aiming to maximize the benefits while minimizing the potential harms." (http://archive.news.iastate.edu/news/2011/dec/naturevg) Although the “problematic use” of games may seem detrimental to society and to that person, we need the context and understand that person as to why they play, it may lead them to huge success and greatness and this doesn’t apply to just videogames. Bill Gate’s dedication gained him access to a high school computer in 1968 at the age of 13, and spent 10,000 hours programming on it; which may be seen as addiction; but completely influenced his career and our society as we know it. 

Perhaps we should stop prejudicing addicts. We don’t know what compels them to keep playing games; it may be the constant rewards they achieve building up dopamine or the social aspect of MMOs and connecting with their online friends. Everyone is unique and has different ways dealing with things; you cannot just envelop everyone under the same definition of “addicted”. It is only through moderation that video games can be fully utilised for the positive effects they can have on a person. If we start at self-control and discipline, perhaps we can change this discourse surrounding games.

Thoughts on videogame 'addiction'

I think the problem surrounding the videogame addiction comes down to how the term "addiction" is defined and from what perspective. The term "problematic use" is a much broader term which includes any problems that arise and cause disruption in a person's real life and relationship.

For many videogames which have a story, players will be most likely to finish the whole story in such a way that could complete the narrative of the game. If these story-based videogames really have a nice narrative which arouse the players' curiosity, they could continuously play for a prolonged period of time out of their desire or anxiousness of how the story would unfold. Level-based games also encourage players to continue move on to the next level, which also makes the players wanting to achieve all of the game's objectives. The player has to invest a lot of time and energy to fulfill the game requirements. You simply press "next level", "continue" or "retry" after a game there is no easy quit button.

I'm not sure about hardcore gamers but wouldn't people feel bored or tired spending really long consecutive hours on one game. At least for myself my brain or my eyes would tell me to stop when I start to have a headache or when I have dry and achy eyes.

Fox News - Free Advertising Specialists

Fox News - Free Advertising Specialists

It is an issue that has plagued the screens of American prime time television for many a year now, and the public response is almost as colourful as the news reports. Fox news and their ridiculous crusade to wipe out none-fundamental culture is something I’m sure most of us re familiar with. If it involves Blacks, Muslims, excuses why children aren't going to Church, or anything to do with sex, you can be sure Fox News will make a ill-informed, badly researched misrepresentation of it.

They say there's no such thing as 'bad' publicity, so with that logic Fox News must be game developers best friend. "Violent games are destorying our youth", the battle cry of many a right wing "voices of the people".

Actions speak louder than words - this video is a great expose about Anti-violent-game activists  

Plus some great follow up articles to read at your liesure


http://venturebeat.com/2013/02/11/nancy-pelosi-defends-video-games-on-fox-news-sunday/

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/12/21/nra-calls-out-violence-in-video-games-like-kindergarten-killers/

http://gawker.com/5968609/fox-news-blames-shooting-on-online-activities-gaming

MORAL PANICS AAAAHHHHHHHH

Video Game addiction seems to be the buzzword of the media for the issues with youth. Aside from the fact that this is a huge generalization this attitude reminded me to the phenomenon that occurred in the 1960s. This phenomenon was that of the Mods and Rockers. While this was a struggle of two subcultures, the relevance here is the moral panic that difference to the dominant societal expectation causes. Moral Panic was used to describe any phenomenon that was deemed a threat to the social order simply because it was new and went against the grain of the social hierarchy. Video games, while not necessarily new, are still seen as an up-and-coming novelty because of such exponential growth in the past few decades. The way in which video games are seen to be a threat to society are sprung from the apparent links and correlations that can be drawn between video games, drugs and gambling – they are stimulating and a user is instantly gratified through reward systems. 

While being addicted to ‘fun’ in the form of dopamine release is all well and good, society definitely dictates which vices are allowed leeway. Video games are seen to be lethal based on the few extreme cases of suicide and dehydration. Being addicted to food is fine, because obesity is prevalent. Addiction to exercise is okay because exercise is to be encouraged. Addiction to smoking is bad but still looks cool so just quit whenever. Video games encourage a fantasy-filled haze of violence and pornography.VIDEO GAMES ARE DEATH. 

Video games are stimulating. Is this not a good thing? Learning to strategize, work as a team, be creative, show initiative, be cautious…are these all not qualities that are revered in reality? The links between stimulation in games and violence in games is seen to be one and the same. While Bill O’Reilly might perpetuate this cycle of ‘video gamers are murderers’, video games do not have to be violent. A lot of them aren’t. Just as Quentin Tarantino mentioned in the first clip, in reaction to violence, there is a cry to ‘Blame the Playmakers’, as though the creators of games are the creators of societal problems such as violence, isolation and addiction.

This comes back to the tropes of gamers, as video game addiction can be attributed to someone who just 'looks the part':

Addiction can be a reality for some people.

 This does not mean that addiction is the default, or that humans are naturally drawn to vices. ‘Problematic Use’ forms, as many things do, as a series of small logical steps that lead to a greater problem. Before you know it, an extroverted person may move into a habit of playing games to deal with other problems in their life. Perhaps these people are drawn away from their people in their life because the people online are more understanding and less biased. The case depends on the person. All we can do is get involved and be supportive of the gaming community.

Also, RIP Video Games Theory and Culture. You were awesome.

- Sophie McGuinness

Approaches to "good violence"

http://gamasutra.com/view/news/185004/Five_approaches_to_good_violence_in_games.php#.URQg7x1JOAh

I found this article interesting as it reiterated what was said in the violence lecture. It states how the discussion of video game violence is too abstract, and there are positives to violent games. All games are different and the level of violence depends on the context. The article discusses some of the contexts that violence might be okay. There are five main points but I will focus on the ones that jumped out at me.

1)      When it's necessary to the narrative. I do not play games, however I can understand that some games will have violence and that violence will be necessary to the story. The article states that “I'm satisfied, even pleased by aggression when it feels narratively consistent, when it's paced well.” This makes sense, and people with particular tastes will enjoy different games.

2)      When it's optional. It is optional to play a violent game is someone wants to, and if young kids are playing very violent games shouldn't that be a comment on the parenting in the home rather than video games as a whole? “Games that offer players a variety of choices about how to deal with threats ensure that conflict is never thoughtless.” I find it interesting that it has been discussed in lectures and tutorials that you can play a game without killing anything, and there are different options to avoid different obstacles. I would prefer a game that doesn't involve violence and would take another route, whether as different players have the option to take a different path.

On a side note (all though it relates to narrative) I found this on rockpapershotgun about a comic which is based upon gamers in-game decisions:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/02/15/igf-factor-2012-storyteller/#more-94453

I’m addicted to Temple Run

I am certain that Temple Run was created by the Devil to stop you from doing anything productive with your life.

Ever since I discovered Temple Run, I became an addicted, crazy person. I’m not even sure why this game has become popular or why myself and others have become so addicted- it has been downloaded over 170 million times worldwide on an iphone and android.  I'm a casual gamer so I rarely play games- but there is something about Temple Run that has me completely immersed and I know im not the only one. I found that when I sat down to play, I ended up playing for hours on end. I tell myself “just one more game, I’m so close to getting a high score” etc etc and then two hours later i'm still playing it! Quite ridiculous really. It ended up affecting my Uni work, and social relationships because when people try to talk to me, I was too busy concentrating on getting a high score.

The game isn’t even that great too- all you are doing is running away from monkeys, collecting coins, going left, right, up and down and jumping. That’s all. Perhaps it is the ease of the game that has attracted so many people- the use of a thumb and moving the phone left and right is all you need to do to conquer the game. The more coins you get- the more things you can buy that can help you achieve a higher score. Or perhaps its because there is no ending- you are running endlessly as far as possible. You can carry on running forever if you didn't die and that is a dangerous thought.

This video explains it all about temple run and its addictiveness.

WATCH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwRQTLOXCtI

It’s this lack of self-control that Walker talks about in one of the readings last week that is the core to addictiveness. He says a gaming addict may sit down to play for an hour, but they won’t be able to stop (yes!). They miss school or work because they are addicted. Perhaps I’m not that extreme, but there are a lot of gamers out there who prioritize gaming over schoolwork, relationships etc and that to me is the broad definition of an addict. It is also interesting that he claims that playing games is like taking drugs, because you are escaping reality, and hallucinating just like when you take drugs. In some ways, it is true because people continue to engage in behaviour when they know it is problematic. Obviously there is a big difference in escaping reality with a game like temple run played on a smart phone, compared to playing a game like World of war craft on a big TV, with multiple players. However, the problem is defining what an actual addict is. If people are trying to escape reality via videogames, then maybe we need to find the core of what the problem is and why they are trying to escape reality. In the end though, we are all addicted to something arent we?

So I deleted Temple Run when I realized how bad my addiction got (I tried to play it driving and convinced myself that any spare time I have is time I could use collecting coins). Now I have deleted this game, I spend seamless amounts of my spare time I now have scrolling through a nonsensical face book newsfeed and pointless YouTube videos. Ironic.

Then Temple Run 2 came out this year, with better graphics, new characters, the ability to drive a cart and ride a flying fox looking rope.

Back to square one. 

Asynchronous Addiction

Ok, I'll be the first to admit that I just wrote that title to draw attention. But I will justify it by saying that I've done this to simply draw attention to some types of strategies tech journalists use in their headlines, that ultimately lead to confusion.

Truth is, people throw around words a lot these days. Almost everyone is addicted to something, according to even themselves. Even Ben Uy, admitted to a comic book addiction in his post earlier today. In fact, I highly doubt that he is, in fact, addicted to comic books. He might spend hours reading them, know more intricate facts about them than most people, and spend far too much money on them, but that hardly qualifies as addictive behaviour.

Anyone who has take the 'Sexual Histories' paper will also note that a lot of the world's addictions are socially constructed. That is to say, they are invented by social parameters.Of course, after today's lecture it's pretty easy to see that the same can be said about video games, gambling and pretty much anything out there.

There seems to be some sort of constant moral panic about technology. As if we are actually regressing or somehow damaging society by developing our capabilities as humans and furthering scientific research. In my opinion, people just don't know what to do about technology. They can't understand the behavioural changes that are almost inherently attached to new developments, and since they have nothing more to compare with than their own past experiences, it seems perfectly normal that they would see this new behaviour as 'unnatural'.

Earlier today, in lecture, I mentioned how asynchronous games could be more prone to causing addiction. I took this from my own experience with these games. Whereby I normally don't find much time to watch television, much less play games, when I began playing asynchronous games I suddenly made time... lots of time. The question of addiction sprang to mind more than once during these bouts. Then again, before I started bartending I never used to drink. Then, after working the job for a year or so, I found myself having a 'staffie' (the free drink every bartender gets at the end of their shift - and yes, I did pick up on the innuendo  almost every night. This then led to inevitable questions about alcoholism.

Of course, I was never truly addicted to asynchronous games, or alcohol. I simply found something that I enjoyed doing, and wound up doing it repeatedly for a while, sometimes even regardless of the consequences. Just as the quote from end of lecture; I found my 'time out'. But this absurd discourse of addiction that exists all around us makes us worry that at any point, addiction could be right around the corner and catch us when we least expect it.

I feel like we would be able to achieve a lot more in the way of social understanding and progress if we just stopped panicking about every little slant in behaviour. If everything is a disorder, than, what's to say we're truly meant to be ordered?

Also here's a cool/funny link that relates to a lot of the topics we've been discussing in class. But mostly to structural incoherence.

Videogame addiction - no-one is totally immune

During the lecture, someone mentioned the concept of "addictive personalities", and how technically everyone has an "addictive personality." I agree with this to some extent, because in reality, everyone is "addicted" to something, whether it be drugs, shopping or videogames. My personal "addiction" is comic books, which I read whenever I have spare time.

On the topic of video games though, they seem to be one of those things that most people are capable of becoming addicted to regardless of age, gender or gaming acumen. In my family for example, I have a younger brother who will sometimes play games for hours until he is put to bed by my parents. As a teenager, his case is not as surprising, because his demographic is probably what many popular games are aimed at. My parents however, despite being critical of my brother's video game addiction have both shown that they are both susceptible to video game addiction themselves. My brother recently got the game Morrowind a while ago for a birthday present, but my mother seems to be the one playing it more. Dad's the same, though he mainly sticks to casual games for his iPhone like Bejeweled.

I consider myself a casual gamer, but every year whenever I get a hold of the new Madden, I always end up playing it to the point that I will defer meals until I finish whatever game I am playing. Anyone who's sat down and watched a whole game of gridiron would know that that can take a while. I've also been playing GoldenEye a lot for my assignment and I've also delayed eating until I've finished certain levels. I don't play video games that often, but it just shows that you don't necessarily need to be a regular gamer to become addicted to video games. Dopamine probably played a part of it, but it plays a big role with a number of things. Watching sad movies, listening to metal, drinking and crying all release dopamine and I don't consider myself actually addicted to any of those. The views that it is due to compulsion or psychological dependence therefore must also be taken into account. My addiction to Madden is partly due to my fandom of the NFL and my dad's addiction to casual games is probably due to his stressful work days. For others, that compulsion or dependence will come from other sources.

I reckon that if you gave senior citizens smartphones and get them to start playing casual games, a number of them will get hooked even if they've never played a video game before. Games like those are designed to be fun and if they do their job, then it shouldn't be surprising that people get hooked on them, regardless of who they are. People who criticize video game addiction but play other games such as sport or card games demonstrate that having fun doing anything can become "addictive."

Gaming is in the eye of the beholder.

 

In Rob Cover's reading for this week, he discussed the stereotypical attributes that have been related to Gamers by academic scholars, critics and other adults of the like. One particular term that was mentioned, "sociopathically isolated" has made me contemplate all the reasons why this specific term may be just a simple misconception.

With a quick google search, the term 'sociopath' is defined as "A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience."

While this could possibly be the case for some gamers out there, maybe for someone like this:

But I think for the majority this can be seen as highly inaccurate. And here are just a few reasons why.

1)It is no secret that playing MMORG's and other online video games involve a lot of interaction with other players. It becomes an environment where people can make friends, share strategies, show off your extensive skill-set and prowess, the list goes on.

Some parents and critics are worried that online gaming environments are not the same as offline face-to-face interaction, therefore harvesting a set of social skills that cannot be applied to real life. However, there are often opportunities for online gamers to meet and interact in the offline realm, through gaming conventions such as Armageddon:

Online games foster a lot of ways for gamers to be social whilst enjoying the world of the game. While it may appear to parents that their child is being anti-social, they are in fact opening themselves up to a wide range of people across the wolrd through online communication.

2) It could be argued that, yes, they are being social through the internet, but they are in fact isolating themselves from the people directly around them. However, many games include multi-player options or are designed to be played by more than one person at a given time. Racing games and shooting games would be a clear example.

There is also the option of playing a one player game with two people. For example my boyfriend and I play GTA together, where he plays out all the missions and I do all the driving. (Because I'm such a hardcore gamer.)

Other gamers play their single player games while in the company of others, like this:

 

This way you’re not completely isolated, but being more alone, together.

 

3) The idea that a sociopath is someone who develops a "lack of conscience" is also something that is hard to believe.

We have already seen in the course many games that in fact make you question your actions within the world of the game, provoking thought on morality, especially in Bioware games.

The agency given to a person in games often makes them think critically of how they will use it in ways that reflect their own moral standing. For example, I was watching my brother player Skyrim and notice he was "Put-pocketing." When I asked what he was doing he told me instead of developing skill through pick-pocketing, he does the opposite, which makes him have a clearer conscience. 

This all comes down to what people see when 'watching' someone play, and what people 'experience' when actually playing any given game. Like Kevin has constantly stressed during the course, CONTEXT MATTERS! And it is not an accurate opinion if you’re standing on the side-lines observing.

 

 

Violence and the numbers

The debate about video games and how they affect the youth of today is never ending; of particular concern are games that are perceived as violent. Generally speaking the games that are considered to be violent all involve a first person shooting type of perspective. The reason this issue has become prevalent can undoubtedly be linked to recent events in the U.S.A where shootings in movie theatres, colleges and schools have become a regular event. In my opinion it is very difficult to make any kind of cohesive link between these random acts of violence and video games. In almost all of these cases the individual involved has had serious issues prior to their grotesque act. These issues include mental health problems, family problems, bullying at school and any number of other things that can drive someone to do something such as the theatre shooting or the shooting at Virginia Tech. When looking at the Hypodermic model and, in turn, Jack Thompson’s opinion, I struggle to grapple with his idea that video games are solely to blame. This is not purely because I disagree with him (which I do) but because statistically his statement is entirely invalid. Recent studies into video games and the number of people who play them are truly astounding and surely throw Jack Thompsons entire argument out of the ballpark. It is said that 97% of teenagers and 81% of adults aged between 18-29 play video games (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2336392,00.asp) . This being the case surely those involved in the shootings in America were far more likely to be playing games than not. You would not find any other percentage that high of something they might have in common so therefore it must be the problem right? This is why the Hypodermic model does not make sense. The odds are that they play video games, this does not mean that video games are the reason they have acted in a certain manner. It is simply a common thread through all of their lives, along with the millions of other people who play video games and do not engage in ‘real life’ acts of violence. In addition to this Jeffery Goldstein talks about how gaming, regardless of the format it takes, has incorporated violence and military like themes for decades. Though I agree with his stance on the topic I do not see his argument as particularly relevant in terms of comparing chess and football to the more modern videogame. They are inherently different in that you are immersed in a game where the goal is to shoot and kill as many people as possible. In football this is not on any players mind, nor is it in chess. Many who play football or chess now days would not be thinking about it roots within military conflict.  So though I agree with where Goldstein is coming from I do not find it an overly compelling comparison. 

Old but gold topic: cultural/racial appropriation D:

Just stumbled upon some fascinating, well-articulated, and reflective comments about cultural appropriation, specifically 'White' characters using 'Black' slang, if we still view it in such a binary.

Top comment:

Amon Houston If a white person uses black people language in a non racist context it's racist? That's the dumbest thing I've read today.

2 hours ago via mobile · Like · 5

Five likes, a great sign of community appreciation!

I remember playing through the game and thinking only that she was a hillbilly, and not using 'African American lingo' (as GP politically calls it) like they're suggesting.
She's a violent child who lives in a cave (with it's own shack) in the middle of nowhere, and attacks railways for fun.

If anything it's a cry for Child Services' involvement instead of the politically-correct brigade.

Crazy Republicans and video games.

Republicans in the United States seem so desperate to pin the blame of societal violence on video games, with one crazy Republican commentator Glenn Beck constantly saying it's not the gun's fault it's the violent video games. I think what this all boils down to is getting votes and support from some of the gun crazy, second amendment waving lunatics we often see on our television when we get news of "anti-gun legislation. Video games while they can be blamed for exposing people to simulated violence, are not responsible for people doing violent things. Would we blame someone for stealing, just because they saw it on television? No we don't. Do we blame the news media for their sensationalist reporting in regards to gun massacres, no we don't. So why should Republicans blame video games for this violence? Perhaps it's just easy to lay the blame on someone so people can rest easy after a massacre. I can assure all Republicans who love their guns that New Zealander's love their video games too, yet are we going on the street murdering hundreds of people? Video games are meant for fun and excitement, not as a training tool for murder. The mass murder in America is due to a violent gun obsessed society, not to do with video games, otherwise there would be as many mass murderers here. Would there not? A study by this article I've sent as a link, actually sees violence decrease as video games have become more popular.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24531/video-games-and-gun-violence-no-studies-link-games-to-gun-crime

Girls who play video games

Discrimination against females in the video game world never seems to end. It’s just foreign and apparently uncommon for females to tread in such masculine territory. It can be seen as impressive and epic to see a female conquer and take part in these activities, but there will always be those little hints of discrimination that weird guys out causing them to go: “what, who, why, how?”

In the gaming community I keep the fact that I’m a girl anonymous. I’ve read previous posts that say girls who openly admit they’re females in game are either drama creators or those who seek favouritism/attention. Personally, I don’t admit it because people will either argue with me or become creepy. The use of voice chat isn’t a good option for girls either. Females have higher voices than males, so obviously the comment: “that dude sounds eleven” may appear. This is because of the obvious stereotype and assumption that only guys play video games.

Assumptions that females aren’t good at games (or well just not as good as guys are)
Sure, why not? It’s such a sexist generalisation xD when it comes to video games, skill can vary between any individual. It’s not like sports, such as martial arts in which girls can have trouble swivelling around to kick because of their wide hips.

I’m gonna rant a bit. During my long love affair with the game LoL I have experienced the moments where friends who play with me for the first time think I suck. I’ve been told what to do and when to do it. One of the important things with LoL is learning how to play the game how it’s played. There are many ways to play it and you can always develop your own. Play it how you like, just play well. I’m not going to boast, but I have been playing the game long enough to know that clicking is vital.

I can admit that I do have friends who treat me equally when playing games. For example, in League of Legends I have friends who know I’m a girl and accept it without trying to protect me while in game. If I do something stupid, they’ll rage at me like they would anyone else on our team.

In my experience playing video games, I have kept myself from using voice chat or at all revealing I am a girl. The last time I ever told anyone I was a girl was while playing League of Legends. It was with a friend of a friend from uni who didn’t use skype. During a game, I apologised to him because I kept taking kills from him and then being silly in chat, saying that I was a bit of a dick for a girl. My friends on skype instantly raged. Saying that I shouldn’t do that, it’ll only make people want to stalk me. It really upset me that I was told off for such a thing, saying that I am what I am: a female. I felt scared and then bad, as if it’s rude to mention your gender and only appropriate to let everyone think you’re male.

Ever since then, I only laugh to myself when people in chat refer to me as a guy.

Video games beneficial for health

I was researching for my essay and found this article about how video games in some cases are beneficial for a person’s health. Handheld games can be good distractions for people with health problems and can be used to increase hand strength, and the article states that “games focus attention away from potential discomfort and, unlike more traditional therapeutic activities; they do not rely on passive movements and sometimes painful manipulation of the limbs”. Clearly articles like this have not been shown in papers etc. because it shows video games in a positive way.

The article goes on to comment how video games can increase aggressiveness and can be addictive especially for children and teenagers, and that’s where I began to question the reading.  However in the conclusion the article says that if there are adverse effects then they are rare, minor and temporary, and this is also not mentioned in articles about violence and the link to videogames.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC558687/

Links of Relevance

Greetings folks, here are some links to some topical discussions that I thought might be interesting.

Shooters: How Video Games Fund Arms Manufacturers.

Imagination versus the demands for 'purpose' in videogames.

Is the Gaming World ready for women in combat?

An interview with the company that made the 'Cyberpunk' trailer we looked at for representing gender and sexuality in games.  The topic of misogyny in the trailer is raised and sadly the interviewer lets them get away with some non-answers on the subject, but the very way they dodge the topic is educational.  Alas, the comments thread is a hive of scum and villainy... and is thus also worth reading.

The most recent in a series of posts on Rock, Paper, Shotgun featuring the week's best free indie games.

Likewise, the most recent 'Sunday Papers' on RPS, which is a weekly roundup of interesting links regarding games and game culture. 

For the record, RPS has links at the bottom of each post where if you follow the tags, like 'the sunday papers,' for example, it'll bring up a list of every post tagged with that label, and thus an archive of every single one.  Useful stuff.

- Kevin

Representation of violence &the real violence

Over the past two weeks, we have been looking on the symbolic represnetations within game spaces. I have discussed the representation of genders and cultures inn the game world in my last week’s blog and, I also revealed that the symbolic representations and ongoing actions in games are merely the extension of continuous human behaviours and mainstream social perspectives. This week’s lectures had looked at the controversies on representation of violence in games and actual violence.  I am now have approved this point which I carried out undeterminably last week after this week’s study and lectures.  I have noticed that most of theoretical discussions of violent video games are clouded by ambiguous definitions, poor research and subjective perspectives, which cause confusion of correlation with causality.  According to Goldstein (2008), symbolic violence has always be an important part of entertainment. Sports games like footballs and cricket had been established upon the components of wrestle, which is attack and defend.  Static games like chess and poker also origins from military conflicts where strategies and schemes appealed.  In this aspect, video games continue a long history of incorporating conflict and fantasy aggression into play.  The establishment of violence in video games also foreshadowed and extended combative soul and aggressiveness in human nature in a virtual world.  Therefore, video game itself does not introduced a new form and violence, but merely a continuance and commercialization of violence that is pre-existed in the human history.