Eric Zimmerman, who we talked about in relation to the notion of the Magic Circle, has written a brilliant piece on Gamasutra, in the defense of the notion of the Magic Circle. I highly recommend reading it, if only to see the kind of academic arguments that go on!
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6696/jerked_around_by_the_magic_circle_.php?page=1
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
Video games and Masculinity
Where are all the female heroines? I went to EB games today to check out what was in store and it seemed that almost every game on the market is centered around a male hero and a female DID (or damsel in distress).
It seems masculinity plays a rather large part with in video games. Men are largely shirtless or carrying large swords or guns in a representation of phallic power. While woman are captured and left to wait for said male character to rescue them.
Ewan Kirkland writes in his article Masculinity in Video games that;
It seems masculinity plays a rather large part with in video games. Men are largely shirtless or carrying large swords or guns in a representation of phallic power. While woman are captured and left to wait for said male character to rescue them.
Ewan Kirkland writes in his article Masculinity in Video games that;
"A cursory survey of the titles available in games stores, or a brief
overview of the imagery, language, and implied readership of
most popular video-game publications, reveals a masculinity that
appears rooted in the traditional iconography of action, guns, and
violence."
However, gratefully perhaps for women there are more heroines becomming more and more prominent. Although I have never personally played it, I do see that silent hill 3's central character is female. There is also Resident evil to consider with in 2000 creating Code: Veronica. With a Female protagonist Claire.
I also happen to stumble upon games such as Grand Theft Auto where women are constantly viewed as sexual objects, mostly prostitutes for the lead male to take advantage of in order for him to increase life or to kill (depending on the type of game play one is engaged with) in order to steal money.
Not meaning to be a feminist but..When are women going to be fairly represented?
In a last note. I came across this hilarious parody of Dark Souls which I had written about in my previous blog. It actually made me feel better about being utterly terrible at the game!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3d94pxVRQU
However, gratefully perhaps for women there are more heroines becomming more and more prominent. Although I have never personally played it, I do see that silent hill 3's central character is female. There is also Resident evil to consider with in 2000 creating Code: Veronica. With a Female protagonist Claire.
I also happen to stumble upon games such as Grand Theft Auto where women are constantly viewed as sexual objects, mostly prostitutes for the lead male to take advantage of in order for him to increase life or to kill (depending on the type of game play one is engaged with) in order to steal money.
Not meaning to be a feminist but..When are women going to be fairly represented?
In a last note. I came across this hilarious parody of Dark Souls which I had written about in my previous blog. It actually made me feel better about being utterly terrible at the game!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3d94pxVRQU
Controversial Videogame Grand Theft Auto lll
One could argue that video-gaming stimulates different
senses in the brain or improves computer literacy however you cannot ignore the
fact that video games have a high representation of stereotyping women, violence,
culture borrowing and representation issues.
I believe that the gaming industry should take more responsibility
in time they that invest producing these games , overall gaming is ubiquitous
and media does tend to display endless representation of ‘reality’. The industry
needs to take social well-being into consideration. For that they produce,
market and sell has more negative impacts than positive. For this reason
producers and gamers need to be more conscious of what the ‘see’ and ‘do’.
A very controversial
video game in the industry; Grand Theft Auto lll embraces violence and racially
stock based characters. This one game highlights the immense negative
representation of women. This game raises white supremacy and white-male
privileges. The main ‘white-male’ character is sent to ‘Liberty City’ to
control the outbreaks. ‘Liberty City’ is meant to be the worst place in America.
The character Leon drives prostitutes, and rival gang members (all people of
colour). The gang represents a high profile of different races such as Jamaican,
Japanese and Blacks. And then you have the White family men protecting the streets
of Liberty City. Where in comparison Leone family is a stereotyped Sicilian
family, and the Blacks room the streets in their gold chains, hoodies and
street wear – hip hop gangsters?
Famous
Hollywood actors such as Michael Madsen provide their voices for their characters
and close-up shots to give them more ‘detail and character’ however the stereotyped
Black gang member have no voice or face, essentially they have no significance
in comparison to the White characters.
Majority of
the White characters are either upper class or elderly whom also are ‘innocent’
citizens. Grand Theft Auto is a game about the White community under threat by
the Black community. They resort to violence in order to protect themselves. There
is a very clear distinction between good and evil in this game and unfortunately
it is games like this that shape unconscious social values amongst society, in the
process reinforcing discourse. This misconception and misrepresentation about
cultures and society are reinforced and shaped by the ubiquitous nature of
media. If the gaming industry do not take responsibility for this, who will?
In the game,
females are represented as mindless and ‘worthless’ characters, it is only their
bodies that are of any value. The dark-skinned women provide sexual pleasure
for the players to retain their health which raises their health scores. After the
transaction the player has an option to either kill or steal her money. What kind
of message does this send to the youth? Is this where hegemony comes into role
where the dominate gender overshadows the other? Do these games inflict and
reinforce the status quo?
senses in the brain or improves computer literacy however you cannot ignore the
fact that video games have a high representation of stereotyping women, violence,
culture borrowing and representation issues.
I believe that the gaming industry should take more responsibility
in time they that invest producing these games , overall gaming is ubiquitous
and media does tend to display endless representation of ‘reality’. The industry
needs to take social well-being into consideration. For that they produce,
market and sell has more negative impacts than positive. For this reason
producers and gamers need to be more conscious of what the ‘see’ and ‘do’.
A very controversial
video game in the industry; Grand Theft Auto lll embraces violence and racially
stock based characters. This one game highlights the immense negative
representation of women. This game raises white supremacy and white-male
privileges. The main ‘white-male’ character is sent to ‘Liberty City’ to
control the outbreaks. ‘Liberty City’ is meant to be the worst place in America.
The character Leon drives prostitutes, and rival gang members (all people of
colour). The gang represents a high profile of different races such as Jamaican,
Japanese and Blacks. And then you have the White family men protecting the streets
of Liberty City. Where in comparison Leone family is a stereotyped Sicilian
family, and the Blacks room the streets in their gold chains, hoodies and
street wear – hip hop gangsters?
Famous
Hollywood actors such as Michael Madsen provide their voices for their characters
and close-up shots to give them more ‘detail and character’ however the stereotyped
Black gang member have no voice or face, essentially they have no significance
in comparison to the White characters.
Majority of
the White characters are either upper class or elderly whom also are ‘innocent’
citizens. Grand Theft Auto is a game about the White community under threat by
the Black community. They resort to violence in order to protect themselves. There
is a very clear distinction between good and evil in this game and unfortunately
it is games like this that shape unconscious social values amongst society, in the
process reinforcing discourse. This misconception and misrepresentation about
cultures and society are reinforced and shaped by the ubiquitous nature of
media. If the gaming industry do not take responsibility for this, who will?
In the game,
females are represented as mindless and ‘worthless’ characters, it is only their
bodies that are of any value. The dark-skinned women provide sexual pleasure
for the players to retain their health which raises their health scores. After the
transaction the player has an option to either kill or steal her money. What kind
of message does this send to the youth? Is this where hegemony comes into role
where the dominate gender overshadows the other? Do these games inflict and
reinforce the status quo?
Games and Movies – Bridging the gap
Why do movie adaptations of games suck so much? (And on that note, why do game adaptations of movies also tend to suck for the same reason?) You probably think you know the answer. Agency, right? Fundamental differences between films and games means cross-pollinating the two doesn’t work in most cases because we get a completely different experience. Something along those lines…
Or maybe its just bad filmmaking. Why should game adaptations be so much worse than adaptations of other texts like books or graphic novels? Like books, games are often reviewed and grouped in lists like ‘Most Popular’ or ‘New Releases’. Like books, games can be educational or entertaining. And yet, the best directors tend to steer away from adapting video games, leaving that job for someone else to butcher. It makes me wonder if you got a competent guy like Christopher Nolan (he did the Batman movies which was based on a comic book) whether you would get a better result?
Even if there is a fundamental difference in the investment people will place on characters in a two-hour movie in comparison to characters in a game played across a much larger time-frame, it doesn’t mean the movie has to suck. Maybe you can’t replicate the effects of player agency in a film, but something you can replicate is affect – that feeling of dread in horror films; that thrill when the camera is in first-person perspective and the character jumps from a great height. Those are the same emotions that someone can get when they are immersed in a video game.
Even more important is nailing the narrative (in terms of audience expectations), which is arguably the biggest criteria in terms of whether an adaptation is considered a success or not. Many adaptations fail when they drastically change the premise or direction of the film in comparison to the game, and the real challenge is to satisfy the general audience unfamiliar with the source work as well as satisfying the zealous fans of the original text – a bridge which usually crashes and burns a lot of the time.
What needs to happen:
· More talented people need to make game adaptations to change the perception that they always suck. Ideally, people in charge of making game adaptations should actually play the game themselves before they are let anywhere near a camera (you wouldn’t make a book adaptation without reading the book first would you?)
· The way these films are marketed needs to be done properly. Expectations should not be built up only to be let down. Presumably, the target audience should be the same as the game, and then expand from there.
· Narrative should be as close to the source material as possible (within reason). The more detailed, the better.
· Game adaptations should first accept the fact that they are primarily films rather than games. The story comes first.
Generational differences
I normally receive one of two reactions from people upon telling them I’m studying video games at University and am seriously thinking about pursuing that study at a higher level. Firstly, there’s the, “Shit man, I wish I was studying video games this summer instead of anthro. Anthro’s fuckin’ terrible. You got any smokes?” from my people my age, and the, “Oh, Really! … Really? Ah well, how lovely for you. My son’s currently studying (insert internationally respected and definitely legitimate field of study here). Perhaps you’ll serve him at Burger King one day when you realise you’ve made a terrible career choice and your life collapses,” from nearly everyone aged over 40.
Funnily enough, it really is almost that clear-cut. I know I’m making a sweeping generalisation here, but from my experience, people from previous generations just don’t seem to understand video games a lot of the time, and are incredibly reluctant to treat them as a legitimate hobby or media texts to be studied. Of course, this is not an uncommon phenomenon; typically, older generations have a much harder time adopting, understanding and using new technology, and they are far less likely to appreciate it and support it they can’t make it past these preliminary stages. But it seems to me as though video games overrepresented (not only in film or television, but in conversations between people) in negative contexts in comparison to other forms of media; they have acquired a certain type of notoriety that concerns people for reasons unknown even to them.
Is it really just a generational thing? No, but in my opinion, the societal context of your upbringing definitely affect your desire to engage with and understand new media technologies. The advent of new technology historically causes huge amounts of controversy, and I think it’s important to take this recurring reaction into consideration when trying to figure out why older people are more reluctant to engage with a video game. Of course, there’s the idea that the new technology – in this case, a form of media – is going to eradicate a form of media that they grew up with and cherish. Although this has proven to be an easily falsifiable claim in recent history, the thought of, say, film being replaced by a new medium which transcends your immediate understanding is a frightening one. I grew up with video games, but I’m arguably part of the only generation that did. Interacting with them comes naturally to me, but I can appreciate that it doesn’t come easily to older generations.
Futhermore, the actions one can perform in many modern video games are incredibly violent, sexual and sometimes even sadistic. I’m not trying to say that violence, sex and sadism weren’t all the rage in the days of hoop stick, but they certainly didn’t receive anywhere near as much attention in film and television as they do now. I think the amount of questionable content in modern video games is a reflection of how desensitised our generation is to this type of content; whereas older generations are frequently shocked by the depictions of violence in video games, my generation can carve a hole in the side of a titan and cut him open from the inside out as his entrails blast forth from his abdomen without even changing their expression. Whereas older generations grew up surrounded by the horror of global conflicts, we can appreciate the violence because we can separate it from reality and contextualise it appropriately. When we commit acts like these in video games, we are aware that they are meant to be enjoyed and marvelled at, not imitated; however, this must be hard to understand for those who have experienced violence in an entirely negative context for the majority of their lives.
On top of this, video games often allow us to do things that would be frowned upon by those who typically limit and restrict us the most – our parents. I constantly get the impression that because parents are unable to completely dictate the types of games (and therefore the types of content) their child is exposed to, they develop a deep mistrust for video games in general. Our desire for autonomy during adolescence can often be misinterpreted as disobedience and rebellion, and since video games often encourage (or at least allow) that sort of behaviour in their diegetic worlds, they are seen as having a negative influence on the malleable and directionless youth.
Video Game Addictions
Can someone really be addicted to videogames? How are they dangerous enough to lead teenagers into committing suicide- like acts, such as jumping out of a buildings and stating the reason for their doing was because of “hallucinations”, or even excessive amount of game playing to spend 18 hours a day like the 31 year old Aaron Hazell – a software designer and former game addict- ?
From the lecture today, Kevin explained about the term “addiction” and how it has been mis- appropriately used in context with gamers and that we should consider the wider social context before labeling people as “addicts”. From my past game experience with games, I know how easy it is to play a game and have become so absorbed (or diegetically immersed) into the game, (i.e. BEJEWELLED BLITZ, FINAL FANTASY/RPG games) that a couple of hours has passed before I have realized it. It is when a person loses this ability to realize and regulate their gaming behavior so that as a consequence problems negatively impacting on one’s life occur. The lack of self control is called “problematic gaming” and the term theorist Keith Bakker suggests to use to describe this situation, rather than the term “addiction”.
The social factors of addictions are primarily psychological. Compulsions, like gambling, shopping and working excessively. It is questionable whether the biological reasoning for game addiction is due to dopamine – the neurohormone when released carry signals between the cells in the brain when a person experiences pleasurable events. As players achieve rewards by completing certain challenges in the games, their feelings of self worth are based upon their success with videogames and so they devote more and more time to mastering the virtual game world. The games stimulate dopamine and this is addictive.
Videogame addiction still remains to be a significant problem in our society. To combat this problematic use of videogames – theorist Keith Bakker suggests we get more involved! J Gamers who have “problematic gaming” should also be educated on the warning signs of addiction and improve their social skills. Though the virtual game world is filled with fantastic and grand realistic imagery and has more to offer than the real world, the game world is still only a representation, an illusion. One must realize this – after all looking back, who wants to be recognized for a life filled with virtual memories of splendor and achievements, but no genuine ones?
Video game and revolution
Twenty years after the first computer was created the idea of
a video game was produced. Undoubtedly the creation of the computer was essential
in the development of the game. Shortly after this the idea was popularized and
coin arcades began to emerge throughout the United States and Japan. After
popularization the creation of a gaming console playable from home emerged and
since then technological developments have been occurring constantly. These
technological developments have undoubtedly shaped the gaming culture that
exists today. Improvements in graphics and more malicious gaming content has
caused debate at the highest levels of American society, forcing even senators
to comment on the current state of affairs. Over the last 50 years video games
have certainly become one of the major forms of media and they continue to
grow. This would not have been the case if the constant pursuit to make these
games better had not taken place. The driving factor for video games has and
will continue to be technological development, and it is these developments
that changes and revolutionizes the culture that follows it. Software and
hardware developers continue to find new ways in which the gamer gets more and
more immersed in the game and entire sub cultures now surround specific games.
It is also interesting to note the age groups of gamers and that it does not
revolve around the younger generation. It appears as though those that were
playing games 20 years ago are still playing them now and that it is a hobby
and a pursuit that takes place over a longer course of time. Video games and
the consoles that power them are undoubtedly a major source of media that is
not only hugely influential currently but is continuing to grow as is the
culture that surrounds them.
What is all the fuss?
This concept is really interested because the term is very undefined. It could simply be put into the same category as most other addictions. However as stated in the tutorial that it does not cover the same basis as say drug addiction. Could it not just be put down to being human and our unique feature such as urges to play games and interact with different technologies? Does it have to be determined as an addiction? Then in that case we are then all technically addicted to our phones, computers, and obviously the Internet. However are these necessarily problematic, not really. It is only those rare cases that fall into that small percentage that is problematic and then maybe it will affect their everyday life. There is nothing wrong with enjoying yourself sometimes and everyone has his or her own way of doing it. Some watch television and some play sport, so therefore what is the direct problem with playing video games it is exactly the same concept and probably more interactive than television.
Now I’m not saying that there are some downsides to playing video games, Of course there is as there is in playing anything. Shown in that newsreel in tutorial was just an over exaggerated approach to problematic gaming. Where it could have been dealt with in a more relatable manner. However that is what parents want to see they need an escape goat and in this generation it seems to be videogames as it was television in the last.
Narrative in Games... it does happen.
Narrative in games seems to be a fairly contestable point of view, there are those that believe games do have some forms of narrative structure and those who believe that they do not when you compare games to traditional media forms such as film, books and theatre. For myself I look at narrative as being story telling, it focuses on the past tense, in other words things that have happened. While traditional forms of media such as film and books have a specific narrative structure, I.e beginning, middle and end, it can be argued that with games while play (control of the characte etc are set in the present, games often have elements of the past as well such as the backstory of the characters, there are often film like introductions that introduce you to characters, take for example Grand theft Auto, when you meet new characters throughout the game, there are often film like sequences that help the player to understand what is going on, what the new characters are about and so on. As Jesper Juul argues you can not have interaction and narration at the same time, this in effect breaks narration, which is a good point. Yet I would argue that because games have the ability to combine both narration and interactivity, they are often done alternatively, in other words while you are observing the film like sequences in games like Grand Theft Auto, you often are unable to have any interactivity, you have to wait for it to be over before you can become the character again. Therefore because games are different to other media forms I do not believe it is useful, or even right to definitively say that games are non narrative, it is more that they use narrative in a different way from traditional forms of media, which in itself is not an excuse to discount them as being inferior and not worthy as being considered a narrative based media form.
Jarrod Te Moananui
Games and ownership
This article from the New Zealand Herald, depicts the actions of violence outside the gaming world. However it is not suggesting that it is the violence created by the game play and visual effects. It was the greed and tactic approaches to obtain certain virtual materials that lead to the violence outside the game. It is also very interesting that the judge considered the objects as real possessions just through the way the child treated and reacted to the virtual items.
This becomes quite disturbing, in a society of such strong consumer culture. The need and want for more things is growing. As seen through this article the need has now transpired over into the virtual world where objects and items in games are now seen as just as precious as real material items and as this article shows can lead to the same violence created from objects just laying in our house. If this continues to develop then our legal systems would have to adapt as well just like the judge did in order to prosecute the attackers. This article really shows how the young generations perceptions of goods and personal materials is changing and would be very interesting to see how this develops.
Cybertypes in Heroes of Newerth
It's not every day that I'm called a Brazilian as a pejorative, wait yes it is. In perhaps one of the least inspired spin off games that uses Warcraft 3's custom map 'Defense of the Ancients' (DotA, Heroes of Newerth pits two teams of five players against each other in order to destroy the opposing team's base. Naturally the idea of putting two groups of five strangers together with the goal of working together is a going to be problematic. It's interesting to see the amount of racism emerge from the frustration and plain nerd rage that this game often incites in it's players. A popular way of insulting another player and calling his skill into question is calling "BR!", or basically suggesting they are a terrible player because they are from Brazil. It's as though the characteristics of a bad player have been simply shifted to become the characteristics of a Brazilian in the game space of Heroes of Newerth, which is a problem on many levels. It's interesting to see the Salem witch hunt mentality of players due to this cultural climate. For example, my username is El_Pico, named after a song I like, but whenever I join a game, I am immediately met with insults and requests to leave as I am clearly an idiotic Brazilian who cannot speak English nor play the game. I think it's interesting how racism operates in spaces where skin colour is irrelevant and once again it seems to favour the white patriarchy as seen by not only the player's social climate, but by the structure of the game as well, where the three servers to play on are USWest, USEast and Europe.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
My own 'Addiction'
I can say that there was a period of time where I exhibited all the signs of a video game 'addiction'. I would skip class, and stay up late playing games until very early hours of the morning. When I left university and got a job this continued still, it did negatively impact on my job and was noticed by co-workers. I played FPS games competitively, sometimes in paying competitions, and would stay up until 3 or 4 am playing with others in our clan who lived in Australia. However in retrospect it was little about the video games that was the problem, and more than my job and colleagues were both horrible and depressing (IT support!). If video games weren't available I would have surely escaped through some other form of media consumption.
So, very much so, I was a problem gamer, escaping through the use of the game and the social experiences that were offered in it. I now have a better job, I hardly play any more simply because the demands of work (5am starts!) wont permit the kind of late nights of playing any more. (Whilst I say that I hardly play I have 160 hours of Skyrim under my belt already... oops). The evidence that my problem wasn't a traditional addiction is that when COD4 got boring... I stopped playing it, in fact I stopped playing for a few months, I tried taking it up again, but the magic wasn't there. An addiction that you can get bored of and quit possibly doesn't match the classic portrayal of an addiction, otherwise I should still be playing Ultima from when I was 8.
One thing I'll note though about new video games and video game services is that they often display how many hours you have played a game, and in examples like Steam, this is publicly shared with your friends and other players. Having a large amount of game time is often worn as a badge of pride, rather than a shameful mark on your life.
So, very much so, I was a problem gamer, escaping through the use of the game and the social experiences that were offered in it. I now have a better job, I hardly play any more simply because the demands of work (5am starts!) wont permit the kind of late nights of playing any more. (Whilst I say that I hardly play I have 160 hours of Skyrim under my belt already... oops). The evidence that my problem wasn't a traditional addiction is that when COD4 got boring... I stopped playing it, in fact I stopped playing for a few months, I tried taking it up again, but the magic wasn't there. An addiction that you can get bored of and quit possibly doesn't match the classic portrayal of an addiction, otherwise I should still be playing Ultima from when I was 8.
One thing I'll note though about new video games and video game services is that they often display how many hours you have played a game, and in examples like Steam, this is publicly shared with your friends and other players. Having a large amount of game time is often worn as a badge of pride, rather than a shameful mark on your life.
Videogames are problematic mmmkay?
During the last lecture on videogame addiction I gained a greater understanding of how the term 'videogame addiction' is misleading and perhaps exaggerated. The word 'addiction' is loaded with all kinds of negative connotations (drugs obviously come to mind), which is why I agree with changing the term from 'videogame addiction' to 'problematic gaming'. In the tutorial we watched a clip on The Morning Show which reported a variety of symptoms associated with videogame addiction which closely mirrored drug addiction. Things like falling school grades, lying about the amount of time playing, reduced self-care. While the tutorial tended to scoff away anything the report said as being biased american propaganda used by scaremongering American media outlets (which it was), it did however highlight how at one point in my life I was a 'video game addict'. Of course the term 'problematic use' is a more accurate definition as my university grades did drop, I did lie to my parents about the time I spent playing and I definitely substituted my sleeping patterns of 10-8 for 10-8 gaming time. In my opinion problematic use of videogames is definitely a real problem that needs to be addressed by parents/ those close with the people struggling to curb their habits, I personally got a girlfriend and she makes sure I don't get the time to play videogames for hours on end... Not sure if its a good thing or not...
You Have to Catch Them All.
In thinking about the problematic use of videogames, a strong candidate that came to mind was Pokémon. This series had me hooked when I was younger and I think there are quite a few traits of the game that encourage those addictive ties with the game. The whole slogan ‘gotta catch ‘em all,’ reminds us of our goal, to completely fill our pokedex. This can be a horrendously arduous task, and take a very long time for those of us who are determined to become Pokémon masters. It must also require seeking out other masters within the real world to trade Pokémon and help complete the pokedex. The grind factor within the game is immense. I can recall hours and hours of training Pokémon is the wild grasses of Kanto, proving just how captivated by the game was. Pokémon is also a fair example of a game with a rapid feedback loop of agency, as each battle is a reward in its own and helps your on your way, making time-loss quite easy within the games. This may be why Online Gamers Addicts Anonymous lists pokémon as one of the more addictive games.
video game addiction
Addiction is a simple word. However, it does not fully describe video games and human beings' relationship with it. It is just a call to quickly understand a fast developing trend.
It has been defined by health professionals as "when a single behaviour starts to transform business-as-usual into out-of-service."
However we will use the phrase "problematic use" which is a word used to define a player's negative relationship with gaming and the negative consequences it has on their lives.
The problematic use within games is a physiological one that can originate from the chemical and psychological reactions to playing specific games. These vary dramatically between different players. Serious mental or physical problems can also make an imbalance more likely. Physical and cognitive immersion can naturally keep players within games longer than they had anticipated. For some people, certain games are more powerful than others.
Problematic use within games isn't made up of one factor but many. One part of gaming addiction has to do with a new and improved living room, but the other part has to do with neuroscience and psychology. Problematic use is a process where the gamer and the game work together, changing the brain over a long process of small steps. Certain pieces of physiology can have a persuasive influence in how people play, and certain skills help them to stay balanced and emotionally. healthy. Games make people happy thus releasing endorphins and dopamine. However even so, this needs to be balanced.It is easy for the gaming experience to spiral out of control with a gaming experience that appears to offer so much to satisfy physical and mental needs.
Games often persuade players to stay within the games using peer pressure and rewards. This is able to disrupt the player from their normal day to day activities. For example, there is a character called C'thun in World of Warcraft who is hard to defeat. It takes time, discipline and teamwork. Most gamers take hours or days to make themselves powerful in order to kill him. Therefore with achievements and accomplishments like this in games, gamers are encouraged to stay longer within the virtual world to achieve virtual milestones.
Moderation is the Key
Before I took this paper, I knew that there was
something about videogames that has always fascinated me. FTVMS328 has taught
me why, and for that, I would like to thank you. I got out of my comfort zone
and tried new things, played a bunch of weird games - that turned out to be
awesome - and found out that most people I know own at least one very expensive
console. I want one very badly. I recently found out though that in order to
became a first class gamer, I need to save, and save, and save to purchase my XBOX – hopefully it will be transporting matter by the time that happens
- and then save to buy the actual games, which can be expensive too.
My struggle to even touch games such as Skyrim got me
thinking of how much effort people have to go through to play properly. And that’s why it is totally understandable if
one spends hours – maybe months, years – enjoying, having fun, and making their
money worthwhile. Some people like to call it addiction, but honestly, too much
of anything can be very harmful. Self-control, as pointed out by John Walker, is
the key. The world today cries for discipline in every single way - traffic,
nutrition, education, work, family, day to day life. Why would it have to be
any different when it comes to playing games? Not only games, but everything in
life should be played in moderation. Slowing down is a very hard thing to do
nowadays, and I might just - by playing videogames.
Violence
Going back to the topic of censorship and violence, a couple of days ago I made the mistake of telling my boss, a father of four children, that there is no conclusive evidence to prove that video games make children violent. I thought that perhaps I didn’t word it succinctly enough when he looked at me weirdly then began to chuckle with a patronising smug on his face. It was then that I realised he was prone to the Hypodermic Model. When I tried to explain the difference between representational violence and actual violence he said, “Look at those guys in Columbine! The F.B.I. checked their computers and all they did was play shooting games all day! Desensitised from violence… etc., etc.” That was the only example he could think of. After more insistent attempts to warn me of the dangers of video games, he left me with what he thought was a really good question, “You tell me this, then: If video games don’t make children violent, why do they censor them…?”I couldn’t really think of much else to say other than it was because all texts must be censored in an attempt to ‘preserve children’s innocence’.
My boss told me that video games made his son more violent. He explained that, after playing Call of Duty, his son had grown an interest in water pistols and Nerf Guns. Water pistols and Nerf Guns are not going to kill you. Most children know the difference!
GTA's rating in America
It's not the prostitutes, its not the rewards you get for mowing people down with your AK-47, its not the sex or the drugs or the crude language, its because who ever is in charge of censorship and the rating schemes in the USA is giving GTA a massive no rating, probably equivalent to a 'PG' in New Zealand
GTA isn't even rated in America, any kid of the street with nappies can rock up to any store and purchase
the game and start shooting up everyone in Liberty City. I mean what kind of message is this sending to our kids? They are allowed to play the game basically, its ok for them to go through the whole story mode of GTA at the age of 5. Is this the retailers fault or the ridiculously soft gaming regulations that the government have put fourth? This is way I understand the many misinformed academics who relate gaming with violence, because anyone in America can play any game they want what ever age they are.
Apparently Australia and New Zealand have the hardest ratings of games in the world, apparently countries are in shock that GTA is R-18 in Australasia.
Just thought I'd share that with everyone
GTA isn't even rated in America, any kid of the street with nappies can rock up to any store and purchase
the game and start shooting up everyone in Liberty City. I mean what kind of message is this sending to our kids? They are allowed to play the game basically, its ok for them to go through the whole story mode of GTA at the age of 5. Is this the retailers fault or the ridiculously soft gaming regulations that the government have put fourth? This is way I understand the many misinformed academics who relate gaming with violence, because anyone in America can play any game they want what ever age they are.
Apparently Australia and New Zealand have the hardest ratings of games in the world, apparently countries are in shock that GTA is R-18 in Australasia.
Just thought I'd share that with everyone
Non-violence in '"violent" video games
Pacifism seems to be a growing form of play that is getting very popular in modern RPG’s. This being a play through the game in which the player kills or hurts NOTHING.
Sounds impossible right? Extremely difficult? yes. Impossible? No
Modern RPG games like Fallout 3 and Elder Scrolls IV: Skyrim are intended to be somewhat of a hack-and-slash, a game in which the enemy is not worried about, just more meat for my sword to slice through. However, as people have discovered, there is a way to play through these games without killing a soul.
Take this video here, in which a player is making his way through Skyrim as a “cat monk”
Or this player here who played through the whole of Fallout: New Vegas with only killing a radroach you have to kill at the start.
One player has even gone as far as creating a character build for the pacifist player. A build which caters to the bartering and speech perks which lets the player convince NPC’s to help them out whilst getting rid of any perks that cater to weapon use or strength.
The problem with this however is that these games are designed for killing, the producers of the game expect the player to go around killing things. In most cases being a pacifist in one of these games is a very difficult thing, an example of this can be seen in the first video where the player is obviously frustrated that at the end of many dungeons you have to kill someone to finish a quest.
This actually sounds quite fun, guess it’s time to boot up Skyrim again
Gamers on Film
The first film that comes to mind when I think about representations of gamers is the 2006 film, Grandma’s Boy. The main character, Alex, is evicted from the flat he rents and has nowhere else to go but his Grandma’s house. Alex is a frequent drug user, leading to many a hilarious antic involving old women accidentally getting high... But basically, the audience is made to view him as a loser. Overall, Grandma’s Boy is a comedic portrayal of gamers and the video game world.
The 2009 film Gamer offers a more serious storyline surrounding gamers. The film is set in an alternate reality where the avatars are real people being controlled by gamers in a third person shooter video game. The game is called ‘Slayers’, and allows the player to control the real person avatar in a multi-player environment. Gamer conforms to the notion of gamers being teenage boys who will become psychopathic killers from overexposure to video games. The film critiques violent games, and presents a world where video games are taken too far, as a warning for the future. It is hypocritical because it condemns video games as bad and thoughtlessly violent, but also presents this violence to its viewers in the form of a film. By giving the player of the game Slayer the ability to control another human being’s body, the film presents a metaphor of the game itself controlling the boy who does not care what happens to his avatar as long as he doesn’t die. Really, it’s about scaremongering. It presents the worst-case scenario of what people see as a moral dilemma caused by violent video games; The youth have become so desensitised to virtual violence and killing people, that they risk the lives of real people in order to compete in video games and be the best! Gamer presents gamers as a serious threat to society.
Rarely are gamers portrayed positively. According to most Hollywood films, they don’t really have anything to contribute to society at all.
The 2009 film Gamer offers a more serious storyline surrounding gamers. The film is set in an alternate reality where the avatars are real people being controlled by gamers in a third person shooter video game. The game is called ‘Slayers’, and allows the player to control the real person avatar in a multi-player environment. Gamer conforms to the notion of gamers being teenage boys who will become psychopathic killers from overexposure to video games. The film critiques violent games, and presents a world where video games are taken too far, as a warning for the future. It is hypocritical because it condemns video games as bad and thoughtlessly violent, but also presents this violence to its viewers in the form of a film. By giving the player of the game Slayer the ability to control another human being’s body, the film presents a metaphor of the game itself controlling the boy who does not care what happens to his avatar as long as he doesn’t die. Really, it’s about scaremongering. It presents the worst-case scenario of what people see as a moral dilemma caused by violent video games; The youth have become so desensitised to virtual violence and killing people, that they risk the lives of real people in order to compete in video games and be the best! Gamer presents gamers as a serious threat to society.
Rarely are gamers portrayed positively. According to most Hollywood films, they don’t really have anything to contribute to society at all.
Games are trying to trap you...not really
I found the idea of “lost time” when engaging with video games very interesting when it was mentioned in lecture. It got me thinking about how games have been changing to keep a person immersed within the game world where, traditionally, there would be certain events that would break this immersion.
One of the most major immersion breakers in a game would be death, leading to a game over screen and eventual reloading and repeating of a certain section of the game. Recently games have been developing ways to incorporate player failure into the gaming world. An example I was reminded of in tutorial was in Prey, where when you lose all your health you are taken to the “spirit world” where you are able to fight spirits to regain health and mana. You are eventually sucked through the ground and placed back exactly where you ‘died’ with no loss to progress. Another interesting way of dealing with failure can be seen in the Prince of Persia series, where you have the ability to rewind time after having performed a fatal jump or manoeuvre.
Another way games make you lose track of time is through some game’s open world design such as the Grand Theft Auto series or Batman: Arkham City. In games where the player is given the choice of what they do, whether it is furthering progression or not and also when they do it gives the person the freedom to explore and not be constrained by progression and completing levels. This is particularly evident in Skyrim, where hours can be lost exploring the vast and unique landscape and discovering caves and forts that may be unrelated to the plot at the current time and as a result no game progress is made.
Loading screens are another, usually unavoidable, aspect of games that break immersion and provide a time for a player to remove themselves from a game, but again developers are finding new and interesting ways of keeping a player engaged with the game while the game does its necessary loading. One of the simplest ways can be seen in Valve’s games, specifically Half-Life 2 and Portal, where, when a map requires loading, a simple, non-intrusive, translucent “Loading” image appears over the existing game screen and disappears after a few seconds once the loading is complete, leaving the player in exactly the same position as before the load occurred. Another tactic for loading screens is to provide interesting information during this time. This can be seen in the Left 4 Dead series where interesting statistics, such as number of kills or who got incapacitated the most, from the previous level are displayed
One of the most major immersion breakers in a game would be death, leading to a game over screen and eventual reloading and repeating of a certain section of the game. Recently games have been developing ways to incorporate player failure into the gaming world. An example I was reminded of in tutorial was in Prey, where when you lose all your health you are taken to the “spirit world” where you are able to fight spirits to regain health and mana. You are eventually sucked through the ground and placed back exactly where you ‘died’ with no loss to progress. Another interesting way of dealing with failure can be seen in the Prince of Persia series, where you have the ability to rewind time after having performed a fatal jump or manoeuvre.
Another way games make you lose track of time is through some game’s open world design such as the Grand Theft Auto series or Batman: Arkham City. In games where the player is given the choice of what they do, whether it is furthering progression or not and also when they do it gives the person the freedom to explore and not be constrained by progression and completing levels. This is particularly evident in Skyrim, where hours can be lost exploring the vast and unique landscape and discovering caves and forts that may be unrelated to the plot at the current time and as a result no game progress is made.
Loading screens are another, usually unavoidable, aspect of games that break immersion and provide a time for a player to remove themselves from a game, but again developers are finding new and interesting ways of keeping a player engaged with the game while the game does its necessary loading. One of the simplest ways can be seen in Valve’s games, specifically Half-Life 2 and Portal, where, when a map requires loading, a simple, non-intrusive, translucent “Loading” image appears over the existing game screen and disappears after a few seconds once the loading is complete, leaving the player in exactly the same position as before the load occurred. Another tactic for loading screens is to provide interesting information during this time. This can be seen in the Left 4 Dead series where interesting statistics, such as number of kills or who got incapacitated the most, from the previous level are displayed
Pokemon (Day and Night/ Good or Bad?)
Kevin briefly made note of this while discussing addiction and games in the lecture on Wednesday. As he said, recent Pokemon gameboy installments have begun to incorporate time clocks into the game mechanic. This helps the player to monitor their play-time, and allows them to find suitable durations of rest and play. However, a further inclusion to the addition of the clocks come in the form of the game's function itself. Pokemon Gold and Silver allowed the player to synchronise their game-clocks with the actual time, and thus, notice shifts in day to night as it would realistically occur at the same time. Furthermore, particular Pokemon would appear in particular times or even on certain days of the week.
It can be argued that the inclusion of this feature further makes the player aware of their time-use in playing Pokemon. To a certain degree, loss-of-time would be less likely to occur as the player is able to witness the change in day happening in real-time within the world of Pokemon. As AI characters retire for the day and return to their homes, the player is made more aware of their situational surroundings in relation to time.
However, this is not fully the case in particular areas of play. As mentioned above, players have to commence gaming at a certain time of the day or night in order to capture particular Pokemon, or activate certain events. In my personal playthrough, I found myself playing during the daytime capturing Pokemon (which were only found between 9am and 6pm), and then switched to nocturnal mode by capturing the Pokemons that came out during the night. Before I knew it, I combined both the day and night play into one continuous playthrough. I only became aware of my 12 hour gameplay when I saved the game, and the saved file alerted me to the amount of hours I have been "in-world".
Goes to show that, on the one hand, yes; the inclusion of the clock does help the player regulate the amount of time spent gaming. On the other hand, no; by intergrating real-time with game mechanics, it is very easy to see both the sun rise and set ingame and out of it.
It can be argued that the inclusion of this feature further makes the player aware of their time-use in playing Pokemon. To a certain degree, loss-of-time would be less likely to occur as the player is able to witness the change in day happening in real-time within the world of Pokemon. As AI characters retire for the day and return to their homes, the player is made more aware of their situational surroundings in relation to time.
However, this is not fully the case in particular areas of play. As mentioned above, players have to commence gaming at a certain time of the day or night in order to capture particular Pokemon, or activate certain events. In my personal playthrough, I found myself playing during the daytime capturing Pokemon (which were only found between 9am and 6pm), and then switched to nocturnal mode by capturing the Pokemons that came out during the night. Before I knew it, I combined both the day and night play into one continuous playthrough. I only became aware of my 12 hour gameplay when I saved the game, and the saved file alerted me to the amount of hours I have been "in-world".
Goes to show that, on the one hand, yes; the inclusion of the clock does help the player regulate the amount of time spent gaming. On the other hand, no; by intergrating real-time with game mechanics, it is very easy to see both the sun rise and set ingame and out of it.
Super Gamers - How gamers may save the world
Would you be surprised if I told you that gamers spend about 3 billion hours a week playing games? How about if I told you that if we can up that to 21 billion hours we might be able to get some real work done. This is the research conducted by D. Jane (Mrs.) McGonigal: Games theorist, game designer and hogwarts professor.... I mean epic researcher.
Come on. Wasting 3 billion hours is not productive, how could 21 billion hours be a good thing? Well lets take the game Foldit, simply enough you fold proteins to make the shape take the lowest energy requirement possible... sounds like a job better suited to a computer, and ultimately that is the goal but it was found that people (Such as Susan, a receptionist by day and self taught microbiologist gamer by night) are better than the computers at doing this job. Oops I made a typo... I mean freaking Super Computers at doing this job! Thus at the same time a computer is training over 200,000 gamers about proteins, they are teaching a super computer how to most efficiently fold them. This process has recently led to a paper being published with 57,000 co-authors in the prestigious scientific magazine Nature.
Foldit is an interesting game in the way it is essentially a 3D puzzle which can be put together in thousands of different ways, but some ways are better than others. All you do is form a preset protein into whatever shape you like, while being shown areas of greater energy use. Then the computer gives you a score depending on how energy efficient the structure is. If you do well, you rocket to the top of the leader board... until someone beats you.
Now one thing to understand is that this is a TINY portion of 3 billion hour pool of resources that is game playing internationally, but still managed to get an amazing result. On average Foldit gets around 2,200 players per week of there 200,000 player members. So 10% in any given week will give it a go, maybe spend an hour a night collectively on the game, so lets say this is 15,400 hours a week going towards this problem. Yet it is not only the time spent playing the game which has value.
The human mind is both simple and complex, we are capable of abstract thought which makes operating within understood rules (whether based in reality or not) something our mind is well suited for. Also our subconscious is brilliant at continuing these thoughts while you are busy listening to your lecturer on a Friday afternoon, an example: While doing an essay you sit at your computer and get nowhere? If no then screw you, you win at uni and I am not playing anymore. If yes, then after taking a shower or a run, did you find the next bit of the essay seemed to flow? That is your subconscious powering through the problem while you occupied your conscious with other problems. What I am getting at is that even though you are not playing games, it is likely your subconscious is.
McGonigal created a game called 'World Without Oil' which puts your actual self (down to city and income) in a virtual world where oil is running out, posing the question what do you do? Allowing players agency and effect that is a near enough analogue to reality that the choices and responces made in the game life have a transferable affect into the real life. This makes the player think about oil usage and how they can cut down. As a novel idea it is great, but more research needs to be done to see how far this sort of game can be pushed. Maybe another way is to put real world issues in a game already proven to be popular?
World of Warcraft has over 10 million subscribers, easily the biggest MMORPG in the world and has in many cases a very fanatic audience who are engrossed in the story and playing on average 22 hours a week, essentially a part time job. Lets imagine that the designers create a game to solve a seemingly impossible Y2Kesque problem that threatens to crash the whole World of Warcraft. If the puzzle is solved the problem is solved and the player gets an epic reward.
I am going to say 50% of the users get the memo and spend only their allotted daily time of 3.14 hours playing (in other words I am going very conservative!). This would mean in one day 15,714,000 hours would go into attempting to solve that problem. To put that in perspective, that is a conservative estimation of 1793 years of human attention bombarding a problem. Just for fun, the maximum estimation (every player for twice the usual daily time = 6.28 hours, because it is such an unusual situation) would equal 62.8 million hours or 7169 years worth of time.
There are 500 million gamers world wide, playing 3 billion hours a week, that is 342.5 thousand years of attention and focus every week (48 thousand hours a day) and this number is growing. Lets take a look at what mankind has accomplished in 48 thousand years... EVERYTHING! Games are a big part of culture, with kids spending as much time playing games as they will at school by the age of 18 and collectively millions of years worth of time going into game play (5.9 million years total being put into WoW). This is an incredible resource but is difficult to harness and direct because many useful game ideas would not be appealing, so ways of implementing problems into games may be the way to solve the worlds issues. A drought in Farmville? Or cars followed by an oil crisis in WoW?
The world has never had such a large and willing collection of capable people. Yet, two questions spring up in its use:
1. How do we harness it?
2. Will 21 billion hours a week be enough to solve all of the worlds problems, as there is one thing we have been telling the critics for years in defense of games; they are only games... aren't they?
- Hugh
Come on. Wasting 3 billion hours is not productive, how could 21 billion hours be a good thing? Well lets take the game Foldit, simply enough you fold proteins to make the shape take the lowest energy requirement possible... sounds like a job better suited to a computer, and ultimately that is the goal but it was found that people (Such as Susan, a receptionist by day and self taught microbiologist gamer by night) are better than the computers at doing this job. Oops I made a typo... I mean freaking Super Computers at doing this job! Thus at the same time a computer is training over 200,000 gamers about proteins, they are teaching a super computer how to most efficiently fold them. This process has recently led to a paper being published with 57,000 co-authors in the prestigious scientific magazine Nature.
Foldit is an interesting game in the way it is essentially a 3D puzzle which can be put together in thousands of different ways, but some ways are better than others. All you do is form a preset protein into whatever shape you like, while being shown areas of greater energy use. Then the computer gives you a score depending on how energy efficient the structure is. If you do well, you rocket to the top of the leader board... until someone beats you. Now one thing to understand is that this is a TINY portion of 3 billion hour pool of resources that is game playing internationally, but still managed to get an amazing result. On average Foldit gets around 2,200 players per week of there 200,000 player members. So 10% in any given week will give it a go, maybe spend an hour a night collectively on the game, so lets say this is 15,400 hours a week going towards this problem. Yet it is not only the time spent playing the game which has value.
The human mind is both simple and complex, we are capable of abstract thought which makes operating within understood rules (whether based in reality or not) something our mind is well suited for. Also our subconscious is brilliant at continuing these thoughts while you are busy listening to your lecturer on a Friday afternoon, an example: While doing an essay you sit at your computer and get nowhere? If no then screw you, you win at uni and I am not playing anymore. If yes, then after taking a shower or a run, did you find the next bit of the essay seemed to flow? That is your subconscious powering through the problem while you occupied your conscious with other problems. What I am getting at is that even though you are not playing games, it is likely your subconscious is.
McGonigal created a game called 'World Without Oil' which puts your actual self (down to city and income) in a virtual world where oil is running out, posing the question what do you do? Allowing players agency and effect that is a near enough analogue to reality that the choices and responces made in the game life have a transferable affect into the real life. This makes the player think about oil usage and how they can cut down. As a novel idea it is great, but more research needs to be done to see how far this sort of game can be pushed. Maybe another way is to put real world issues in a game already proven to be popular?
World of Warcraft has over 10 million subscribers, easily the biggest MMORPG in the world and has in many cases a very fanatic audience who are engrossed in the story and playing on average 22 hours a week, essentially a part time job. Lets imagine that the designers create a game to solve a seemingly impossible Y2Kesque problem that threatens to crash the whole World of Warcraft. If the puzzle is solved the problem is solved and the player gets an epic reward.
I am going to say 50% of the users get the memo and spend only their allotted daily time of 3.14 hours playing (in other words I am going very conservative!). This would mean in one day 15,714,000 hours would go into attempting to solve that problem. To put that in perspective, that is a conservative estimation of 1793 years of human attention bombarding a problem. Just for fun, the maximum estimation (every player for twice the usual daily time = 6.28 hours, because it is such an unusual situation) would equal 62.8 million hours or 7169 years worth of time.
There are 500 million gamers world wide, playing 3 billion hours a week, that is 342.5 thousand years of attention and focus every week (48 thousand hours a day) and this number is growing. Lets take a look at what mankind has accomplished in 48 thousand years... EVERYTHING! Games are a big part of culture, with kids spending as much time playing games as they will at school by the age of 18 and collectively millions of years worth of time going into game play (5.9 million years total being put into WoW). This is an incredible resource but is difficult to harness and direct because many useful game ideas would not be appealing, so ways of implementing problems into games may be the way to solve the worlds issues. A drought in Farmville? Or cars followed by an oil crisis in WoW?
The world has never had such a large and willing collection of capable people. Yet, two questions spring up in its use:
1. How do we harness it?
2. Will 21 billion hours a week be enough to solve all of the worlds problems, as there is one thing we have been telling the critics for years in defense of games; they are only games... aren't they?
- Hugh
Violence and videogames - To furthermore add to PJK's post
In response to the blog post made by PJK ('Violence in Videogames and Violence in Reality' - 29/01/12), I would like to add to the points he/she makes. PJK suggests that videogames do not cause people to act violently or commit crimes – “Through this, the fact that people commit crimes cannot be seen as due to videogames.”
I do agree with this. Violence is separate from videogames, and videogames should be seen as the SYMPTOM NOT THE CAUSE (as Kevin suggested in the lecture).
By saying they are a symptom we are suggesting that people use may use videogames as a reaction to the problems they might have in their lives. A symptom (playing videogames) of the cause (the pre-existent problem).
With that being said, perhaps videogames do help foster some of the pre-existent violent tendencies that people may already have. If someone is innately more susceptible to becoming a violent person then violent videogames are probably a good way to help this person express these feelings and perhaps even train them!
But is that a bad thing? Maybe this is a good outlet for these people then? Instead of hurting people in real life maybe videogames is a good way for these innately violent people to express their anger/violent antics in a healthy way, rather than hurting real people?
Or maybe the really violent ones will still go out of their way to hurt real people/commit crimes in real life.
It’s hard to say.
But for now, we cannot blame the videogames – they are the SYMPTOM NOT THE CAUSE!
I do agree with this. Violence is separate from videogames, and videogames should be seen as the SYMPTOM NOT THE CAUSE (as Kevin suggested in the lecture).
By saying they are a symptom we are suggesting that people use may use videogames as a reaction to the problems they might have in their lives. A symptom (playing videogames) of the cause (the pre-existent problem).
With that being said, perhaps videogames do help foster some of the pre-existent violent tendencies that people may already have. If someone is innately more susceptible to becoming a violent person then violent videogames are probably a good way to help this person express these feelings and perhaps even train them!
But is that a bad thing? Maybe this is a good outlet for these people then? Instead of hurting people in real life maybe videogames is a good way for these innately violent people to express their anger/violent antics in a healthy way, rather than hurting real people?
Or maybe the really violent ones will still go out of their way to hurt real people/commit crimes in real life.
It’s hard to say.
But for now, we cannot blame the videogames – they are the SYMPTOM NOT THE CAUSE!
Taking Advantage of Gaming's 'Addictive' Qualities
I’d like to pick up on Lydia’s thread about how games and ‘gamification’ could possibly be used to help society, and how this relates to their immersive, compelling (’addicting’) properties. Earlier on, I’d read Sam’s post on the same video, and I mostly agree with his perspective. Whilst Jane McGonigal’s point of view is perhaps overly optimistic, I think it has infinitely more productive potential than the various moral panic/violence/addiction discourses that we are so used to seeing in mainstream media. Perhaps one of the most telling points is that the question of how is presented, but not adequately answered. Whilst games encourage gamers to develop the positive qualities Jane McGonigal talks about in-game, they don’t seem to translate to real life. I agree with Sam’s point about games ‘nurturing players better than real life’. This also relates to our lecture on addiction. Games are immersive. They provide a space where the player’s efforts are rewarded in a reliable fashion. Like other media forms, they can present worlds which people love to get lost in. In short, they can be an appealing form of escapism. I’d like to note here that I don’t see escapism in itself is as a negative thing, however, escapism which has a negative impact on one’s life (a.k.a problematic use) is. This is something which James from Extra Credits draws on in this episode, where he tells his personal story of gaming compulsion. I think one of the most interesting points he makes in here is that he found ways (mostly unspecified) to apply some of the qualities he had, which games valued, to real life in a beneficial way.
Returning to less philosophical territory, Lydia points out that there could be ways to turn the immersive properties of games that the industry has honed over many years to real world problems. As the video and other posts have pointed out, there have been a few efforts at making games which help with real-world issues, such as the ones Jane McGonigal works on, or Foldit, or even Freerice. Whilst these games are certainly not World of Warcraft sized, there’s no doubt that they are an innovative and positive development for games and society. (Yet another Extra Credits episode proposed the idea that scientific background applications, which make silent use of spare processing power, could be incorporated into regular games, which I thought seems like a very good, plausible idea.)
Other notable areas which have taken steps to harness the immersive properties of games are education and fitness. I don’t think educational games are entirely unsuccessful; some of my favourite titles from childhood were educational. I do think that they have yet to find a consistent, truly successful formula, perhaps because of their dual purpose and divided target audience (parents and kids). And whilst exercise and games are most commonly thought of in terms of Wii fitness games, I found that simply combining the two through multitasking was a far more common (albeit ridiculous looking) idea than I expected. The concept is sound: find a way of doing something which is necessary but unengaging, whilst in the time-vortex of an immersive game.
All in all, ‘gamification’ and using games to help in other areas of life is an appealing concept, but a few things should be kept in mind when attempting this. Not even all games succeed at being good games, or at being immersive and engaging. So you can’t simply tack on game frameworks to another concept and expect it to work. Blending the different elements smoothly is the key, as well as making sure that the end product still retains qualities of a good game, not just the qualities desirable for the particular endeavour.
Returning to less philosophical territory, Lydia points out that there could be ways to turn the immersive properties of games that the industry has honed over many years to real world problems. As the video and other posts have pointed out, there have been a few efforts at making games which help with real-world issues, such as the ones Jane McGonigal works on, or Foldit, or even Freerice. Whilst these games are certainly not World of Warcraft sized, there’s no doubt that they are an innovative and positive development for games and society. (Yet another Extra Credits episode proposed the idea that scientific background applications, which make silent use of spare processing power, could be incorporated into regular games, which I thought seems like a very good, plausible idea.)
Other notable areas which have taken steps to harness the immersive properties of games are education and fitness. I don’t think educational games are entirely unsuccessful; some of my favourite titles from childhood were educational. I do think that they have yet to find a consistent, truly successful formula, perhaps because of their dual purpose and divided target audience (parents and kids). And whilst exercise and games are most commonly thought of in terms of Wii fitness games, I found that simply combining the two through multitasking was a far more common (albeit ridiculous looking) idea than I expected. The concept is sound: find a way of doing something which is necessary but unengaging, whilst in the time-vortex of an immersive game.
All in all, ‘gamification’ and using games to help in other areas of life is an appealing concept, but a few things should be kept in mind when attempting this. Not even all games succeed at being good games, or at being immersive and engaging. So you can’t simply tack on game frameworks to another concept and expect it to work. Blending the different elements smoothly is the key, as well as making sure that the end product still retains qualities of a good game, not just the qualities desirable for the particular endeavour.
Reply to Emmajane :
“Violence and addiction”
Before this course I always thought of videogames as addictive and that they could cause violence among certain people. I had just never really explored my reasons for thinking this, I am not addicted to videogames and I don’t think they make me any more violent than any other type of competition. After the lecture on addiction and exploring how things like addiction and “depression”, “obesity” and other signs of “videogame addiction” are all inherent problems that are not caused by videogames but are ‘illnesses’ that may make one more inclined to play videogames. The difference is massive when looking at something like videogame addiction, the fact that there are people out there who make these claims about videogames and base there logic on unreliable information gathering methods with a system that is modelled off of drug addiction. I don’t believe Videogames are more inclined to make someone more violent than they are already capable of. But I do think Videogames can provide an escape from reality that is easy enough for it to become problematic. When I play videogames it tends to be an all or nothing relationship. I will start a campaign in a new game and play lots until it ends. Knowing my own tendency towards this, I have tried to avoid MMORPGs as they don’t seem to ever end. That seems to me to be a breeding ground for problematic gaming. Although I think all games should have a function that orders you pizza to your house.
Addiction in games or myth?
Addiction in games or myth?...
But what makes a game addictive? Are there certain characteristics that make some games more addictive than others? Why are some teens more susceptible than others to this kind of addiction?
As with any addiction, video game or "gaming" addiction is usually a multi-faceted issue. For starters, video games are designed to be addictive. Not "addictive" in the clinical sense of the word, but game designers are always looking for ways to make their games more interesting and increase the amount of time people will spend playing them. There are Web sites devoted to gaming design where gamers try to answer the question, "What makes a video game addictive?" They want you - once you log in or pick up that controller - to never want to stop playing.
Therefore , games are designed to be just difficult enough to be truly challenging, while allowing players to achieve small accomplishments that compels them to keep playing. Knowing this, the design of video games is similar to the design of gambling within casinos, which will allows players to have small "wins" that keeps them playing. There are several "hooks" that are also built into games with the intent of making them "addictive".
So all in all I think it fair to say that the player is the one in control of their time , chosing whether to play the game and how long for and that if the game itself is truly exciting , thrilling and engages with the player then they will be spending more time playing this game not because they addicted, but because they chose to and are actually having fun.
Cheers.
I found Wednesdays lecture to be quite interesting with regards to what addiction is and whether or not it would apply to video games. I have read through most of the blogs relating to this question and though that it might make more sense for me to make a list which supports that video games can actually make a positive impact in your life.
1. -Video games can make you more creative. (A study conducted by Michigan State University published online in the journal Computers in Human Behavior, suggests that kids who play video games tend to be more creative.)
2. -Video games can help improve your vision. (Researchers at Nottingham University found that certain video games could help people with vision problems.)
3 -Video games can help improve your decision-making skills. (Fast action video games "help train people to make quick, accurate decisions in all aspects of life, new findings suggest.")
-Video games improve your attention span. (studies show that video games can help increase your attention span, improving people's driving skills and abilities to multi-task.)
5. -Gaming can sharpen your memory. (researchers are using video games in rehab programmes to help slow or reverse the "cognitive decline that comes with ageing.")
6. - Playing games can improve hand-eye coordination. (the new Wii game proves this)
7. -Video games make learning fun. (video games challenge and workout the brain in different ways.)
8. -Gaming makes you a better employee. (The University of Colorado’s Business Denver School found that using video games for on-the-job training created employees who did their jobs better and retained information longer than employers who used less interactive and more passive teaching methods.)
9. -Video games strengthen familial bonds. (Brigham Young University's School of Family Life found that girls who played video games with their parents (key part is with their parents), "were more connected to their families and had better mental health than those who played on their own or with friends.")
Obviously there's a healthy limit to anything and if you're avoiding or delaying your real life obligations to play video games then you really should consider limiting your game time since your lifestyle could be seen as unhealthy. Through my list of positive reasons as to why gaming could be good for you and is not seen as addictive , we could conclude that an hour or so of game play a day might actually be good for you.
The advert that was shown in class was most interesting since that can be seen as fully contradiction the list I just compiled. It in fact placed videogamers in a most unsavoury stereotype and implied many things relating to why gaming is bad for you and how it most certainly can be seen as addictive. I know this clip was made in humorous manner but it can be interpreted in both ways. For and against gaming.
As with any addiction, video game or "gaming" addiction is usually a multi-faceted issue. For starters, video games are designed to be addictive. Not "addictive" in the clinical sense of the word, but game designers are always looking for ways to make their games more interesting and increase the amount of time people will spend playing them. There are Web sites devoted to gaming design where gamers try to answer the question, "What makes a video game addictive?" They want you - once you log in or pick up that controller - to never want to stop playing.
Therefore , games are designed to be just difficult enough to be truly challenging, while allowing players to achieve small accomplishments that compels them to keep playing. Knowing this, the design of video games is similar to the design of gambling within casinos, which will allows players to have small "wins" that keeps them playing. There are several "hooks" that are also built into games with the intent of making them "addictive".
So all in all I think it fair to say that the player is the one in control of their time , chosing whether to play the game and how long for and that if the game itself is truly exciting , thrilling and engages with the player then they will be spending more time playing this game not because they addicted, but because they chose to and are actually having fun.
Cheers.
Violence and Addiction
I always thought that video games were addictive but now after the readings and lecture I have changed my mind, as with like everything people enjoy, they want to do more of it, and especially if players are immersed in the game they may be unaware that their behaviour may appear to be addictive to others. I also believed that video games caused violence and now I disagree with this also. I agree with the week nine reading that excessive play is a symptom of the problem not the cause. My friends disagree with me that video games do not cause violence and stated that some attacks on people in America are fully modelled around video games. It makes sense that the excessive game play can just be a symptom as it is likely that due to other influences in their lives and upbringing (such as anger, aggression, isolation as seen in Rob Covers reading) led them to ‘attack’ and if it wasn’t modelled around video games it could just have likely been modelled around other media forms such as TV shows, books, movies, songs etc. this suggests that video games are no more dangerous than other media forms and influences in peoples lives. Also the fact that millions and millions of people play these games and only a tiny percentage show negative behaviour relating in some way to the game, emphasis that the game is not necessarily the cause of the small percentages violent behaviour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)