Like a Movie

So I played Final fantasy 13 the other day. I never really caught on to the whole Final Fantasy franchise growing up. I watched one of my friends from primary school once. I learnt there was this bird thing called a Chocabo and one of the main character was named Cloud but that it. Naturally, when I came to play Final Fantasy 13 I immediately recognized the yellow chicken nesting in the token black guy’s afro and asked were is Cloud?

The graphic were amazing! It was like watching a movie. And then I walked around for a bit… And watched another movie! I must give grace to the fact that it was just the beginning of the game and it was establishing shit loads of characters but there was a cut scene ever couple of minute. Great cut scene but coming from a first person shooter dominated background, I found Final Fantasy 13 less like a game and more like a motion picture.

With regards to game play my IMMERSION was put right out from the get go. Not just from the fact that my attention is now drawn to the impenetrable fence lines that I could have jumped in real life, thanks Kevin, but also because of the ridiculous control adjustment interface. Within the game you are given one chance to calibrate how you want your camera to move in relation to the thumb sticks. After this you have to exit the game and go to the starting menu to change it. What’s even more frustrating is you cant actually test it out within the game to get a feel for it before you accept. So from the start menu one must pick the camera control > load game > see if the like it > if they don’t, quit > repeat steps 1 – 3 until they are satisfied OR decide F*ck it who needs to control the camera anyway.

Once I got past the initial frustration I did enjoy the game. I guess it was kind of like suspending your disbelief when you watch Mission Impossible 4. Instead of registering the guy doing all the cool spy shit as the poster-boy for Scientology you see Ethan Hunt.

Will consoles become extinct with in the next few years or will they continue live on though, I don’t know, the X-Box 720 or Playstation 4? I ask this question because I don’t really see the point new version of the consoles currently available. Amongst these two you can play muti-player games online, play games using voice command, body movements, gun controllers, guitar controllers, drum kits controllers, DJ controllers, microphones,  you can watch movies,  buy movies and games, browse the net, and I’m sure the list goes on.  What more is there to offer?

This stream of thought was first bought up when visiting my friend Vinnie. When small talk got boring Vinnie whipped out the latest i-phone. There were a few generic apps and games that you would expect to see on a phone. But then he opens this game that looked like a mini version of Skyrym. The game controls even resembled that of a consoled controller with its touch screen thumb stick. Finally the graphics were, dear I say, just as good as you would get in a console game.

Later that week while searching blog-worthy stuff on Youtube I found this:

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

Basically this guy uses an i-pad to interface with his television. While he demonstrates this he suggests that tablets, like the i-pad, could be the future of gaming because they have high quality gamming capabilities as well as the ability to access online game and can connect to the T.V. When we consider what we currently have in terms of online gaming such as MMOGS, Xbox live gaming, Steam (in which games are accesses and saved online, not on a hard drive); all of these elements combine, provided they are developed further, could displace the consol.

Consequentially, this may also mean that gaming will be further opened up to those who might not consider themselves gamers. Lets face it, almost everyone with a cell phone is guilty of spending too much time mucking around with snake and Sudoku.  If console-like games became the standard kind of game one would play on an i-phone or an i-pad, people would become far more game literate. This would encourage the market to invest more into the type of gaming that is A) accessible via the Internet and B) games that can be played on portable devices.

Even if the Xbox 720 or the Playstation 4 were released what could the possibly provide that we don’t already have? Hey, the might be able to suck us into a digital world like Tron…. But even so, pricewise, these consoles would be around a thousand bucks, limiting the demographic that can afford them. Comparably i-pads and phones are relatively cheap and provide a lot more functionality. All the gaming industry needs to do is exploit this pre-existing widespread medium of technology and the PWN console games into extinction!

Violence in Video Games or Halo?

I have a friend (actually a friend of a friend of a friend) who is very polite and passive and all that when he's NOT playing video games but if you end up playing co-op with him on Halo, he apparently turns VERY vicious and violent. My friend said she had to fend him off because he was about to BEAT UP his partner, A GIRL because they were losing because of her!

So does it mean that something's mentally wrong with him or maybe it is a bit true that some video games do make people a bit more violent? Or maybe it's just Halo because I realized that the people I know who play Halo get very agitated really easily?

These are the issue that confuse me....

The King of Kong

WATCH THIS DOCUMENTARY!

No matter how little or great your interest in video games is, you have to watch this documentary! The King of Kong, A Fistful of Quarters (2007) is an absolutely brilliant documentary that takes you along one man’s journey to prove his amazing skills in ‘Donkey Kong’ to a gaming empire.

As FTVMS students, you will most likely appreciate the brilliance of this documentary from start to very finish.

The entire documentary can be found on Youtube (9 parts/ 79min in total).

Below is the first 8.57mins of the documentary.

(IMDb rated it 8.2 so you know its going to be good)

GO WATCH IT! :D

My pre-determined freedom

I think the topic of video game agency is a very nice little pool of interesting thought. On the one hand we have those who go all shakespearian with their "can't controll your fate", "your virtual life is pre-determined" folk arguing against the existence of agency. And then you have them rebels who argue for the idea of agency in videogames. Those who, like Mel Gibson's William Wallace, desire nothing more than to have their birth-righted freedom expressed. So who is correct? I say why not both of them!

Anti-agency peeps have the point of videogames being a constructed space. As such, we are limited to the parameters some guy with developing carpal tunnel and jelly-donut crumbs on his shirt has set up. Theres no such thing as getting a 25 kill-streak nuke in farmville, nor is there the option to mug a prostitute in spyro. We are subject to the underlying codes written in terms of what is possible, and what is impossible in the diegetic world. In this regard, we are, as Kevin put it, 'rats in a maze'.

However like a rat we too have the ability to 'stop running'. A rat has the ability to run back or jump or scratch its butt if we so desired. Like the rat a gamer is restricted to a 'path', but we can still engage in this path in several ways. With games the ability to look or shoot or t-spin our brick or run a random hooker over allows us to express this agency however we feel. Yes jelly stained shirt dude programmed it to be so but the mere fact that you chose to run that hooker over and not "follow the road code" (LOL at that person) is exactly tha 'A or B example' of choice.

When these points are combined we see that they aren't counter intuitive, put work in conjunction with one another to create that experince that makes videogames what they are. The ability to act and affect, albeit within a certain framework, this diegetic world of the game. In other words, gamers are simply pseudo-scottish rats running over dead hookers in a maze cleverly constructed by some divine entity intent on making us fools of fortune. or there abouts.

The Hypodermic Model

As we are already aware, the Hypodermic model of media communication is one that assumes that mass media can directly influence behavioural change by 'injecting' its audience by audio/visual means. I would like to focus this blog on on the Hypodermic model. I will criticise it, despite the fact that it gets hammered all the time, which is exactly what it deserves might I say. I want to further question the validity of the model and its ignorance to the idea of context.

To set the context of my discussion I want to define violence: Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

I recall watching Sky Television several years ago when they were screening an advertisment for Sky Sports channel. It featured a man walking briskly and seriously down a dark inner-city road. As he paced towards the camera he said (or something vaguely along these lines), "If you want to touch other men, if you want to tackle someone senseless or just want to slug someone across the head, you can. Just call it sport."

This raises several questions for me in terms of criticisms of games and violence. A person might participate in a sport such as boxing, watch it on television and may even play a video game of it. Surely the actual participation of the sport which is at its core, a violent sport, has more direct behavioural effect than the game does. The link here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nepBG1PtFd0) is footage of Fight Night Champion, a boxing game which contains blood yet only has an M rating in New Zealand, interesting. What I am trying to get at here is that i think that the model fails to account for the fact that people understand violence in context. I watched boxing as a kid, but have never punched someone in the face. The hypodermic model is one which is based on conservatism and contradiction. It allows for violent past times but not for violence of new kinds. It is a direct parallel between the argument of whether the rapper "Common" should be allowed in the White House for having gun sounds in his songs, yet the same people making the criticisms can sing every word to Johnny Cash's Folsom Prison Blues, a song which explains a senseless killing by a prison inmate, made and performed by a man with extensive criminal history who has visited the White House several times.

I have a major issue with how the Hypodermic model doesn't allow people to understand a text but instead makes the subject to it. If conservative's want to control violent behaviour in teens it lies in societal contexts. Bowling for Columbine(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUSpszWfu_w) expresses this point very well, that it isn't what you watch or listen to at all. It is more a question of personal situations.

I also think is is hilarious to think that the majority of the people in mass media images are slim and fit, yet you don't see everyone buying a bowflex. It just doesn't work like that!

Anyway, I am going to rob Munchy Mart, just cos' I can. I learned it from playing GTA.

To game... or not to game?!

To game, or not to game?!

Gaming has most certainly been stereotyped as somewhat having too many negative connotations and also being associated with those whom have little to no social life , don’t engage in physical activity and are perhaps part of a different brain wave altogether.

I did partake in limited gaming as a child: Super Mario Brothers ; Pacman and the one which my mother never minded us playing: Majhong. Personally I do feel that if children play games which are informative thus mathematics , language or possess elements of education then I think they most certainly will create positive outcomes for children. However, I do disagree with games being used to ‘kill time’or when parents stick their children in front of the television screen for hours on end with their PS3 in hand leaving them to play games till dinner time, unsupervised thus resulting in the child consuming information which could more than likely not be suitable for a young child and therefore being like a sponge, taking in all the corruptive information that our horrible world has to offer.

I disagree with assumptions made with regards to comparing gaming to watching television in the sense that they are both entertainment forms for one to ‘chill out’ whilst watching. Television is something that one can certainly relax to and also not necessarily partake in.  One can walk away , make a cup of coffee and still hear what is happening in the Hospital at Seattle Grey. You don’t have to be so immersed in the show to understand the relationship between the cast in Grey’s Anatomy. However in comparison to gaming , it needs one’s undivided attention. Most of us can agree with this statement. If you not paying attention then a slayer or a zombie could ‘kill’ you. This exact reason is why children become unsociable, scared of the real world and lose all human interaction ‘skills’ as such. Its fair to assume that a lonely housewife can simply ‘zone out’ to Sim City or Second Life and re-create a world where she might feel dominant , secure , beautiful and engage in relations making her feel worthwhile. However, the realism is that her husband is going to be home in a few hours , the children might need picking up from school , laundry needs doing , groceries need to be bought and dinner needs preparing. All these are day to day routines which most of us follow so games which create hours of ‘zoning out’ can simply not be seen or categorized or labeled as being productive , positive or worthwhile.

I might have waffled a bit but in essence I feel I have communicated my idea as to why I think gaming which is engaged in for hours on end can simply not be seen to have a positive effect in ones life. However I do feel that if it’s a game which for children as an example , focuses on education where they could perhaps improve on their maths skills then I am most certainly all for it. We are living in the real world , why not become the best we can be and use today’s technologies to further ourselves, improve our intelligence and social skills not to shy away from the world and become stale.

"Columbine Shootings..1999"

Columbine is a familiar place or a tragedy that happened in 1999. A tragedy that that made world news which was of course shootings in a high school which killed 10 people and 12 people injured. They were innocent students of the school that did not know that it was their last day to see their families. Hearing the Breaking News was a pending decision for my father to decide whether he wants to buy us a new computer, I was only 10 and remember watching the news about the columbine shootings. Of course it was a big NO to buy our first computer because once my father heard that computer games was one of the influences of the killers Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris to do such thing my father did not want it at our house, but I was bragging how I am not going to use the computer to make bombs I wanted to do my homework on it and it was still a NO. Video games was one of the first questions about the columbine shootings. In the news coverage it also showed a footage of the two boys going out in the woods and practising shootings with real rifles and guns. In a website it stated "However Klebold and Harris seemed to spend their time doing normal teen activities. They worked together in a local pizza parlour,liked to play Doom (a computer game) in the afternoons and were unsecured of what they looked like,they were worried about getting prom dates," the video game Doom is mentioned and this was like it was one of the influences. But this is not the argument is that it was their life styles and how they were treated in the schools which was not a remarkable influence.But it was. Another question was where were their parents when the two boys were going out in the woods and practising their shootings but of course their parents would of been at work and at this age 15-16 year old,parents tend to let their children be independent.The columbine police also investigated that there was video games and how to make bombs which was installed in their computers. The mentality in the mind which lead them to make a tragedy in the school. They were just like any other student but racism was questioned and the groups in the schools the minority and the majority, when you watch the MTV programme "if you really knew me"it is about students that did not know about the other students and this is a successful programme in the United States at the moment.Helping students to express themselves and not judge someone from what they look like on the outside. I don't think here in New Zealand we have Jocks,Popular,Clown and Emos's, I was very surprised that there are certain groups in America. But going back to the Columbine Shootings to my point of view it depends on the person and how they relate to today's society. It was not video games that influence these boys to do such thing but my point is not everybody who play video games are killers and it is weird to also hear that Dylan one of the killers had a journal about hating the world and this was very personal. How many gamers out there have their own journals, he also had a soft spot in him. The boys had there own personal reasons and also because they were not "popular" but who gives a crap, this was not under the influence of video games.

Uh oh...moral panic!

This article is about a petition put up to The White House to get "SkyRim" (actually titled "The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim") produced by "Blizzard Entertainment" (actually produced by "Bethesda Game Studios") banned. This was eventually discovered to be a satirical joke, but it does draw parallels to Jack Thompson's letter to Bill Gates about CounterStrike we saw in the lecture. However, it did get some signatures, albeit mostly fake ones, but there were a handful of people who were genuinely supporting this fake petition.

Response to "Just Saying"

Eh... The media always portrays things in a specific way and put everything else in the dark... It is possible that female gamers can be as violent but I think it goes back to upbringing...

The difference between a young boy growing up and a young girl growing up in my opinion is that boys are encouraged to be a bit rough while girls have role models like Barbie (girly girl who loves pink) so I think boys end up becoming more prone to being influenced by the "violence" in video games because they have been exposed to roughness when they were young "Boys will be boys..." and all that...

However, girls are not usually encouraged to play video games to begin with which is quite sexist in that case but because of their restrictions,

... Just Games.

I am an old school Crash Bandicoot fan (back when Naughty Dog made it). Numerous suppliers took over creation of this game, each of them changing it slightly - often enhancing the aesthetics of the game by making them more digitalised. The games began, it seems, to treat the player (no matter how experienced or inexperienced) as ignorant through a compulsory tutorial explaining the most basic of controls. This is not just restricted to the Crash Bandicoot games. In general, in previous games one was encouraged to figure the controls out through the easiest beginning levels that gradually increased to more challenging ones. Thus players’ received the satisfaction of learning something for themselves as well as their improved ability to solve issues throughout the game and thus improving their overall ability. Games have reached a wider audience and it can be argued that due to this they need tutorial stages in order for people to differentiate between other games and learn the controls for a new one. However, no matter the age or experience of a player it is unnecessary for an interactive tutorial phase to say "Press (square) to spin". These cues remove the ability to become immersed in the game as you are aware that you are not actually in the gaming world and consequently it negatively affects the overall experience. What ever happened to trial and error?

Kula World. Now there is a great game. It challenges the player mentally, there are no outrageous aesthetics to cloud the game’s aims, and its controls are basic and easy to use. In this game one is a ball that travels through different levels. To unlock the next level one has to reach the designated amount of keys and reach the exit in the allocated time limit without getting harmed by a range of different dangerous obstacles along the way. It is considered an educational game as each level is a problem solving challenge. These kinds of games are debatably among the most popular because they are frequently played by middle-aged women. This demographic is steadily increasing and most indie game developers are starting to take note of this, hence the huge surge of simplistic flash-based facebook games appearing lately. These casual games are easy to get into predominantly because there is no jargon or presumption of prior knowledge or skills. This is a different style of gaming, but it is actually very profitable and stable compared to the 3D video game industry. However, like Xbox games and other consoles, casual games such as these are pushing the “multiplayer” experience. The multiplayer experience appears to be encouraged online and with consoles as people want to play with their friends. Social networking is becoming so integrated into society that everything has to follow suit or is left behind. So games are doing just that and, in a sense, becoming social networks themselves. In addition to this, multiplayer offers developers more chances to make after sales profits from things like in-game content and tournaments.

Wanda Hart

Violence in Games

Hi Rod here,

Interesting lecture today-along with the Goldstein reading, it really gave me an incite into how the media and practically every agency I have ever heard in the news etc views the great violence/video game debate.

BUT is there a connection with, especially RPG games and viloence? Answer; Yes, probably at some level. If you play video games will you become violent? Answer, only if you want to! Are video games alone the cause of violence in youths and other sections of the community who play them? Absolutely not!!! I can back this up with no research at all but by saying that I have played video games, I know many other people who have played video games, and none of them are murderers! In fact if you look at cigarette smoking-you are guaranteed to have adverse health affects (even if only mild). For alcohol; probably around 30% of us will have some problem at some stage with alcohol. Drugs of any sort will obviously have some ill affect at some level. But gaming? What %age can they give me that concludes the level of real life baddies that will come out of gaming?

There is a myriad of other bad habits that many of us do to some level and that might have adverse affects on our physical or psychological well being-But I think it just simply comes down to everything in moderation. And with video games, for most of us-They are just enjoyable! Play them 24 hours a day for a month and you might have a problem. But that is you, not the game.

You cannot ban everything just because someone may get hurt if they are stupid. Thats just what our current leaders try to do-There is a long list of areas where responsibility is not placed on those who actually cause problems, it seems its too hard so everyone must pay.

What I am trying very hard to say is; The simple answer to violence and any other crime in my opinion is, regardless of whether you play video games, smoke marijuana, or even if your mother didn't tuck you in at night; if you want to go around beating up people or causing any other type of mayhem in real life, our authorities need to make the punishment suit the crime and make you responsible. There is no need for family meetings or some other pathetic waste of time. The offender must pay either by fines that mean something, real community service that you cannot get out of, or jail that means a stint away from society. Home detention? Give me a break. That is just an excuse to play more games!

People are all too good at blaming everyone else for their own problems. You stuff up, it should be all on you. Why should I not be able to play a video game just because some moron tried to blame his own actions on gaming?

I am just worried the authorities stance on addressing violence in video games will simply be a tax which will be supposedly used for some sort of monitoring. However, good parenting, and solid consequences for societal adverse actions regardless of whether you play video games or not is a far better deterrent in my opinion.

Sorry to ramble on but hope this makes some sense. See you in class....

Jack Thompson and the hypodermic model

After the lecture today, I found myself looking up Jack Thompson and stumbled upon his website: www.jackthompson.org where he asks questions such as "what are your children playing? How much adult content is there in these games? Is it suitable? Is the rating any good? Does it prevent children from buying things they shouldn't be able to buy?"

In the lecture, Kevin discussed the hypodermic model where the audience is treated as a passive mass with no agency. The hypodermic model was first coined by the political scientist Harold Laswell who believed in the early period of the 1940s, held that the mass media have direct, powerful, and undifferentiated effects upon audiences. This argument may have been more valid then than now because there is the invention of the internet which opens up free information. Whereas in the past, people end up thinking what they are told because there is no other source of information. For example, this model was used for propaganda in World War II when Hitler controlled the media outlets.

Nonetheless, this model is used by Jack Thompson who thinks that we have to protect the young and the vulnerable from video games. This is a very ignorant approach as it doesn't account for how the audience might use the media. For example, studies show that people who engage with textual fictions are aware they are doing so. In Layman's terms, people are not idiots. They are aware they are playing a game and won't actually go around murdering people in real life after playing a game. The model also does not account for the fact that not everyone in an audience behaves in the same way. It treats people as if they are the mass, not individuals, thus imposing an assumption on the whole population. This effectively results in "othering" people who don't know any better because of stereotypes based on education, race and those in the lower socio-economic strata. Last but not least, this model gives the media much more power than it can ever have in democracy. This means that in the democratic world that we live in, people no longer rely on one means of media technology.

People have agency and the capability of not being swayed by the media.

This brings us back to Jack Thompson and his argument that video games make people violent. For example, he tried to hold video game producers responsible for the Columbine high school massacre. However, research shows that there is no simple relation between video games and making people violent. A perfectly normal person, who plays a video game, will recognise that it is a game and not actual violence.

It frustrates me that people such as Jack Thompson thinks that they can put the blame on video games alone when there are so many other media outlets that showcase violence and sex such as the television. This is not to say that it is the media alone that contributes to high crime rates.

It just seems very narrow minded to point to one thing, and use it as a scapegoat for violent crimes.

Korean Addiction and....

Today's lecture on 'censorship in video games' was very interesting (as all the other lectures....haha ^^). Kevin's lecture- not forgetting to underline again his help of such easily understandable examples of various, complex ideas and academic concepts- provided a trigger for me to recall the importance of various audience-reception models of media such as the hypodermic model or the 'uses and gratification model.' Moreover the emphasis on 'hypodermic model' and the quotes of the infamous Jack Thompson (iI will NOT be like him! lol) was comprehensive enough. On the other hand I had to partly agree that such 'passive media effect' of video games can HARM people in other ways.

While Thompson was a 'hilarious' figure in arguing that the Virginia Tech murder was heavily influenced by gun-shooting game (i.e. Counter Strike)- simulating or rehearsing violence via virtual world- it may be a minor aspect but while I was doing a research on a video-game essay few years ago, I actually included the reference (via a CNN or ABC interview I recall) that mates of Cho Seung-Hui- the 'protagonist' or the murderer of the massacre- have in fact witnessed him playing the popular first-shooter game Counter Strike occasionally. It 'may' have supported him to 'rehearse' his prodigious plan (just like what Thompson argues) but this is could also be implied as an assumption because we don't (at least myself) specifically know how his socio-phsycological status was. I must criticise Thompson's rather rash argument in which states 'it is because of the VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES' - Even Kevin evinced in the lecture with the help of statistic evidence that the violence have not decreased for the past decades in Western countries.

What I am concerned more about is the so-called 'addiction' of certain games.

Well, I am from Korea- a country known to be equipped with the most developed 'IT' in the world, i.e.) the fastest internet/3G/4G connection speed or the most internet users in the world in regards to the users:population ratio. As many of you guys be well aware, multiplayer(online) gaming is huge in Korea. One of the best examples can be explored through Blizzard's real-time stretagy game, Starcraft- We even have the so-called 'gaming channels' on Cable-TV that broadcasts battles of pro-gamers 24/7. The emergence and subsequent popularity of 'Pro-gamers' are obviously influential here and I can assure you with confidence that in general, Koreans are the best Starcraft players (or even Warcraft perhaps) in the world. (I personally don't feel too proud though...^^;;).

This is just a mere example of many facets that how some (or perhaps majority? haha.) Korean people take games 'serious.' However, the problem lies here. After all 'pro-gamers' such as the 'king' Lim Yo-Han(ID: SlayerS_BoxeR) or 'Genius Terran' Lee Yoon-Yeol(ID: oGsNaDa) are deemed as massive celebrities in Korea.- They even get paid considerably more than popular Rugby players here in NZ.

A lot of 'ordinary' people in Internet cafes (PC Bang) now passionately plays Starcraft to immitate their role-models' fast-hands skills and unique stretagies- this becomes a great addiction even based on my experience(and my 'gamer' friend Phil Kang..lol ^^)- People watch the pro-gamers' clips on Youtube '12/7' and immitate/ play it out the rest '12/7,' hence accumulating to 24/7. By watching their play, we get to think- Are they real humans just like us? they are GODS!!- a great motivation to become like them.

Hence an extreme addiction are somewhat inevitable- which is a big fascinating problem. Unfortunately I occasionally saw Korean news that reported 'young men' dying while playing Starcraft due to dehydration, having excessive amount of smoke or not eating anything because he was so 'immersed' to the game. In my opinion, while video game violence is a major discourse, 'addiction or perhaps an 'excessive immersion, is another seriousness. Frankly, I have a lot to say about 'gaming in Korea- and its gamers' but I just want to ostensibly touch on this 'addictive' aspect of the video games that potentially influences an individual(s). After all, what I want to convey is that genrally speaking, 'addiction' to a game is also serious as 'effect of violence' in video games. ^^

Digital Education

I’m Norwegian, and had to learn English when I was a kid. Interestingly, this didn’t happen in school, where cramming grammar rules bored me to oblivion. Video games on the other hand were largely the reason my English today is fluent. When I first played Pokemon Red at the age of 6, I felt compelled to teach myself in order to understand the game. It sure worked better than anything I did in the classrooms.

Which brings up an interesting point in regards to education. While video games are often brushed off as a danger to children’s willingness and ability to learn, this is an unreasonable and narrow argument. Like in the example above, video games provide an excellent way to learn English, expand vocabularies and understand the language in an entertaining fashion. Similarly, video games such as LA Noire and Braid force players to think logically in order to uncover the mysteries. The Nintendo DS-title Professor Layton is based around mini-games which often encourage mathematic solutions. Hints are available to the player, at the cost of points when the puzzle is complete.

Thinking about it, these games have a fantastic potential which typical blackboard teaching could never hope to reach. Video games are stimulating not only to the eye and ear, but also the brain. Youths have increasingly shortened attention spans, making video games a good alternative to wordy textbooks. It can virtually solve the problem with bored students in classrooms if used properly. Of course, this means that the right kind of games must be used; even I can admit that God of War 3 might not be the most intellectual game on Earth. Even so, I highly doubt it’s actively reducing anyone’s IQ. Or encouraging someone to grab two chains, attach blades and awkwardly attempt to swing them around like a massive twat.

In the Digital Age, it is widely accepted that teaching methods should be re-imagined to suit modern lifestyles. Video games have helped me more than school in grasping English, and I know I’m not the only one. Why then, I have to ask, is everybody so hesitant to seize this wonderful tool?

It annoys me to no end how constant moral panics regarding video games blind people from seeing its potential. Because there is. There is a lot, in fact.

Lars Hermans

Just Saying

I must say, I found todays lecture quite entertaining to some extent. I do however, see how frustrating this particular topic of the course can be. When Kevin showed us the clip from close up and they were pin pointing on the "vulnerable society" I think it was, the first group Ithought about were kids. Teens, adolescents ect. But it got me thinking, can the violence researchers potentially blame from videogames be clichéd to a sense where the issue could possibly be directed at the male race? For one, I think its wrong. I'm pretty sure there are female gamers out there somewhere on this rather vastly large planet who do end up getting violent. But when has anyone ever heard of a story on the news where some kid goes on a killing spree and they blame it on the videogame and it turns out that kid was a girl? It makes me wonder if the media only pick stories out there that will provoke parents into thinking teen boys (or males or however you want to classify this) who play violent videogames will become violent because the story is about a teen boy who murdered. I think this side of the topic is completely unfair. I feel the media only relate stories that will enhance [their view] on it because in olden days, men were considered warriors while woman had no say in the matter (and were considered to only cook and clean). I'm not saying female gamers need to make their presence known by going on a stealing and killing spree after playing Grand Theft Auto 4 but I do feel that the media is wrong in the ways in which they approach the subject of it. Just saying...

Jenni M.

A question about immersion

The concepts of diegetic and situated immersion, which were described in last weeks a tutorial really makes you, think. How is it that one can so easily be immersed into a game and unconsciously get so evolved in a particular virtual world? Mark described that situational immersion can only be found alongside or after diegetic. However if you think about it carefully is this really the case. I know this is a point that could be argued for a very long time but I thought I should just express my personal opinion on this theory. In video games you immerse yourself into the world, which is the whole point of the game. When the immersion is broken the impact of the game becomes less and less. So the whole point of them is to involve the player as much as possible to keep them interested. Therefore the immersion becomes an advertising technique on how good the game is. The concept of diegetic immersion is where the player is embodied into the playing world. However why is it that situated immersion needs to be diegetic first. Why cant there automatically be situated. I understand the fact that you must first learn the game to for it to become second nature. Wouldn’t you say though that because of this generation’s adaptation to video games that the hardcore gamers are automatically in situated immersion? Where also the longer you have this immersion technically the better the game. Therefore doesn’t this cancel out the dietetic before the situated. I am curious as why we need both in order for the game to be good and why it can’t just be situated.

Modern world mogul’s aka virtual entrepreneurs.

When researching for last week’s blog, I unintentionally stumbled across a Youtube video on Second Life and virtual entrepreneurs. Prior to seeing this video I knew that there were many types of entrepreneurs that existed, such as business entrepreneurs and even enviro-preneurs, however, I had never come across the notion of a virtual entrepreneur. It was my lack of understanding about virtual entrepreneurs, which fuelled my desire to know more about these new age businessmen and the online contemporary marketplace.

The first time I watched the video, I was amazed by what I saw, as I had know idea a virtual business world even existed. Obviously, I knew the internet was central to conducting modern day business; however I was unaware that real businesses were starting to develop within virtual games. I thought that online games were just for entertainment and couldn’t lead to any real monetary profit, oh how little did I know.
I have attached the link here if you would like to watch it yourself. The video is in two segments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM6b_DBmolM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdX02VADGZE&feature=related

The video reveals how real people are frequently creating avatars, ultimately extensions of themselves, and developing virtual shops which earn them real world money. My first thoughts were ‘this is absolutely genius, utilising the internet, the fastest growing market place in the world, all by the click of a mouse’. As I thought about the possibility for commerce in virtual communities a little more, I realised that there were indeed many benefits. Virtual entrepreneurs are able to access an extremely diverse marketplace, but in a much more manageable space. For viral entrepreneurs, the cost of setting up a shop in Second Life is much more economical than setting one up in the real world, thus the risk is also a lot less.

As the clip went on my thoughts on the benefits of virtual selling, were solidified by the experiences of various virtual entrepreneurs. A lady called Nyla Kazakoff established the House of Nyla in Second Life, a fashion hot spot. Nyla explained that the virtual world has managed to achieve something amazing; it has bridged the gap between reality and imaginary. Once I thought about this, I realised Nyla was indeed correct, she was able to sell fantasy designs for Linden dollars, and then have that money exchanged into US currency. Nyla also explained that setting up her business in the virtual world, meant she has been able to do business in foreign countries, something she would not have been able to afford to do in the real world. Evidently, Nyla’s ability to access foreign markets has also meant, that she has been able to generate more widespread attention for both her online and real world House of Nyla brand.

The success of virtual entrepreneurs is resulting in many real world businesses following suit; creating brand presence in online community’s aswell. STA travel has bought space in Second Life, because they believe that is an efficient and inexpensive way of rapidly growing their youth target market. I predict that over time more and more businesses will venture into gaming communities such as Second Life, eventually making virtual worlds a universal way of conducting commerce.

Throughout the clip I began to think that conducting business in the virtual world sounded pretty easy, all you need to do is think of something you want to sell and rent a virtual space to sell it in, right? Wrong. As I continued to watch the clip, I learnt of disgruntled virtual entrepreneurs who were offended by the fact that people thought their job was easy or not a real job. I quickly learnt that just like setting up a business in the real world, virtual businesses also require strategy and a lot of time. Virtual world businesses need a strategic marketing plan, which specifies who the target market will be, how the brand will be advertised, the best location for the shop and so on. Not only do virtual entrepreneurs need to apply real world business concepts, but they also need to study the virtual world. I can imagine learning about virtual communities in regards to business would be quite hard. For example, you would have to consider how an avatars needs and wants are different from that of real people, you would have to learn how to use Linden dollars and transfer that into real currency, aswell as how much people are willing to spend on goods and services in the virtual world.

After familiarising myself with virtual entrepreneurs and really reflecting on what they do, I think I can safely say being a virtual entrepreneur would not be as easy as it sounds. In fact, I commend people who have managed to establish a viable business in the virtual community, because it really would require a good understanding of real world business, as well as an appreciation for virtual games, like Second Life. Becoming a successful virtual entrepreneur like any other entrepreneur, requires a creative mind and a good eye for identifying gaps in the market place, even if the market place isn’t exactly real. For now, I think I will stick with real world business, but I will definitely keep an eye on virtual commerce, because I believe it has a very powerful potential.

Amanda Pearce

Gaming can make a better world?

Here's a little something something I found....

The lady in the frame is Jane McGonigal, a PhD graduate and

game designer who by 2010 developed a theory to source gaming

as a means of saving the real world...

(it's 20 minutes, watch it)

(seriously, there are some fun facts in there... watch it)

She describes how gamers develop these optimistic approaches and desire to solving

problems within virtual spaces, yet not so in reality as they don't feel as good about themselves in the real world as in games. Her theory as I basically understood

it is, to adapt games around real world/fictionally based problems that people may

encounter, so that they generate an understanding on how to solve it. She argues that

the best way to do this is through gaming as players develop four 'talents' within their

online worlds that give them a charge to tackle any issue head on, which are...

Urgent Optimism- the desire to act immediately to tackle an obstacle combined with the belief of accomplishing the task. There is no negative emotion or avoidance as such.

Social Fabric- Weaving a tight social fabric... We like people in games as we develop

an immediate trust with them and that they will aid us in accomplishing the given task.

So playing games together builds up bonds and social relationships

Blissful Productivity- we know when we are playing a game we are happier than just

relaxing, as we are optimising our time by challenging ourselves in hard and meaningful work.

'Epic' Meaning- Being apart of a great scenario/ a divine quest as such.

With these powers combined, a gamer can be understood as a 'Super-Empowered Hopeful Individual' who can change/help any virtual world... What Jane wants to do is blend this

mentality into gamers minds when up against the real world.

I have to say, that at this point in time I agree with her idea. When I'm immersed within a game such as battlefield 3 ( a modern warfare FPS game) I join with people I don't know

aiding and trusting them to achieve the same goal (victory over the other side) against any problems that arise (baddies and bigger baddies), to them I become a great hero of war (so to say) who will do anything until we succeed. Basically I can be described as a 'perfect' being... So why is it within in the real world when I'm given an issue such as a uni assignment I twiddle my thumbs saying 'uuum' while my brain shrugs and say's 'I can't help you'. Seriously,

if my so called gaming mentality could be applied to any situation what so ever I would of probably invented the Iphone when I was 5. With that I can tell you I do agree with her theory in, yea the world quite well be better IF such and such but I don't see how the idea can be implemented in an effective way. The way I see it, games nurture players much better than real life so people are going to become more accustomed to their virtual spaces in favour of the real world as who would want to leave somewhere they are 'loved' by something (just ask your dog)...

To summarise my thought, her idea comes across to me as a dream the basically in tales, MAKE LEARNING FUN... An idea the world over has been trying to induce on young people possibly since Jesus.

To be honest, I changed my mind on her ideas time and time over and i know my argument is not concrete, so bring it on!

Your thoughts?

Terminology of the day.

'EPIC win'- where the outcome of a challenge is so extraordinarily positive, that you had no idea it was possible unti you achieved it, almost beyond the threshhold of your immagination and when you get there you are shocked at the realisation to what you are capable of.

So many theorists O_O

Just looking over some of my lecture notes and i've noticed a number of game theorists that have been looked at are increasing...

Week 1 
~ Scott McCloud (and the "infinite canvas")
~ Steven Poole
~ Marc Prensky ("digital native"/"digital immigrant")

Week 2
~ Andrew Darley
~ Martin Lister
~ Alison McMahan
~ Ron Burnett
~ Laurie N. Taylor (immersion)
~ Chris Chesher ("invocatory devices")
~ Edward A. Shanken (agency)
~ Janet Murray (agency)
~ Jane McGonigal
~ Christine Ward Gaily
~ Peter Bell
~ Johan Huizinga
~ Roger Caillois
~ Greg Costikyan
~ Katie Salen/ Eric Zimmerman
~ Gordon Calleja (immersion/ structural limitations )
~ Bruno Latour 
~Yanfang Tang (Western vs. Asian approaches to reading different poetry)


In 4 days we have covered 21 theorists... Wow.

Some of the concepts and vocabulary being taught on last friday i'm still getting my head around as the material is so many and new - I get it easily confused (i.e. Actor- Network theory..Tmesis)
...And it doesn't help if the theorists write in a way just to make everyone's lifes harder  to read and understand lol! :P Lecture 2 content is no where as deep as lecture 4 imo...

Have to catch up... >:l