Final Paper!

Greetings all!

The all scary final paper is soon to be due and for this week's assignment, we are to come up with a bit on what our paper is about.

My brief synopsis is thus: the focus will be on the multiplayer aspects found in the game Saints Row 2 and how those multiplayer options are vital to the economic and creative success of games in general. The idea behind all of this is to show that social fun equals success. If there is no socializing, than the game becomes less fun and is short-lived at best.


What are y'all's thoughts? Any opinions?

Military Games and Propaganda

Greetings all!

This week was an examination of games and how they are impacting the way the military propagandizes, recruits, and trains soldiers. In addition to all of that, there was a brief bit on how the future of combat is going to involve game console controllers (LINK & LINK). Everything written followed along the lines to a logical conclusion: gamers grow up and the military gives them the tools that they are most familiar with (LINK). Military action games, such as Full Spectrum Warrior and America’s Army, are used to train soldiers in tactics and other military operations as well as being useful propaganda tools for potential soldiers.

The controversy surrounding this issue is whether using games is right or legal. Technically, these games could be enjoyed by all ages, even minors who cannot join the military yet. One particularly well researched editorial, written by Michael Reagan (LINK), is of the opinion that such actions are illegal and are not justifiable. Of course, well-meaning Mr. Reagan is also heavily biased, considers high school teenagers to be children, and disobedient, mutinous soldiers such as Lt. Erin Watada and others like him to be heroes. My response is that anything created or sponsored by our military branches for the use of propaganda will be biased and pro-military, that it is idiotic to consider high school students to be children, and that soldiers who disobey military orders are simply not heroes.

Another sore point of contention was the game Six Days in Fallujah. This particular war game was created around the real life 2004 military operation of the Iraqi town, Fallujah, and was to tell the story of the soldiers who participated in the action. This of course has prompted quite a bit of discussion and debate about whether we should be dramatizing events which happened only a few years ago. Many have pointed out movies and music as examples of why we should while still others use the games as an example of why we shouldn’t. (Sources for more info on this debate and game: LINK, LINK, LINK, and more LINK)

My perspective on these debates and arguments is that everyone is forgetting the overarching purpose of gaming: to simply have fun. Yes, yes, it is the modern medium through which propaganda and biases can be shared; gaming can be training tools for educational purposes; gaming console controllers can be used to manipulate million dollar equipment. But even still, when things are boiled down to their base essence, gaming is supposed to be about socializing and having just plain fun. If we as individuals want to know more about the Iraqi War, learn more about history, or fully understand all that our faithful military soldiers have to go through then there are many sources to draw from (such as books and documentaries).

I say, keep gaming as fun and leave education and propaganda to other sources better suited.

Cheers!

Living Dangerous in a Digital World

Greetings all!


In this week’s readings there seemed to be two different vein of thoughts the first being cheating and the harmful effects cheaters have on playing games (links found here and here). The second vein of thought dwelt on a practice known as “gold farming” and how it has evolved the economics both in a virtual world but also in the real world (links found here and here). The discussion on gold farming was particularly interesting to me as the articles dealt with particular emphasis on two different thoughts: politics and economics. Politics because the authors strove to show how what was happening in a digital world happened in the real world many years ago; Economics because money is being transferred between real-world nations but also changing the digital world and the value of the gold itself through inflation.

All mummery of politics and economics aside, I feel that gold farming is harmful both in the digital world and, more importantly, the real world. How so you might ask? One of the important parts of economics is how the common person creates value through increasing in skills and then using those skills for the betterment of the community, the nation, and the world as a whole. This idea of being able to create value is vitally important especially to the individual as it is a good indication of the growth of the person. In gold farming, it is literally creating a market of digital workers who earn real world money.


This is harmful to the gold farmer as well as to the economies. To find out why this is first, answer the question “what real world skills are being developed to create economic value?” The answer is gaming skills of course but games in general are very short lived in comparison to the lives we live. Furthermore, the skills developed are shared by 10-12 million other players. I would hypothesize that the gamers who participate in gold farming are actually digging themselves into an economic hole in which eventually they will find themselves unable to retreat from, having developed no marketable skills during that time and created nothing of real-world value. The game goes away, as it surely will in the future, and there goes the market.

The second vein of thought is cheating and how it has impacted gaming. I personally thought that the ideas were amusing and interesting but ultimately an exercise in futility. We are raising our generations to be winners, to accomplish great things whatever the costs. We are also raising our generations of people on the idea of getting ahead using the “quick and easy” way (for a good example of this, see the US economy and the bank industry). Continually we are promised perfect bodies with minimal amount of time (via a diet and exercise) or a beautiful home or expensive car with very little sacrifice of time or money. These all correlate to cheating, as cheaters are interested in quickly and easily getting ahead in a game. Why sacrifice time and put effort into a game when you can just cheat and be the top?


My ultimate answer to this is that nothing of value or worth ever came easy and that the things of greatest value take time and sacrifice. Gaming is for fun and in the grand scheme of things not of the greatest value. This leads me to the conclusion that I really don’t care if others cheat as putting everything into perspective lessens the need for perfecting a game character or the experience of the game itself.

To be completely honest, I’ve cheated on many games but they were only single-player games so no other players were effect except for me. “Why did I cheat” you may ask. The answer is quite simple:


When I play a game, I do so for the unique story. I play games as simple diversions in between all of the many real world activities I’m involved in. I do not have the time to invest in a game to experience the many hours of long drawn out, sometimes frustrating, gameplay. Interestingly enough, I’m not the only one with this particular mindset as there are many gaming developers which are now creating games designed to be enjoyed in bite-sized chunks.

In conclusion, how we play our games is ultimately a reflection of what we have going on in the real-world and not the inverse.

Cheers!

A Reiteration of Last Weeks Articles

Greetings all!

I feel that I need to re-enforce and clarify what I stated last week as a precursor to this week’s wise words. Last week was focused upon how gamers and the online world are impacting real world activities, such as civic and political activities.

I would like to say that, in regards to the civic/political activities of gamers, it would be a logical fallacy to conclude that because gamers may participate in such activities online, then those actions are going to be carried on in the real world, that gaming alone causes individuals to participate or even that gaming had any effect at all on gamers decisions to be participants in the real world community or nation.

These conclusions are drawn from first hand experience when dealing with the gaming community. Most of the time, when I attempt to encourage civic or political engagement from individuals who game heavily, the response is one of disinterested apathy. All the while, these same individuals will be often more than willing to socialize and help out fellow teammates or clan members from one game or another.

What I am suggesting is that, depending upon what we use as a measure of civic or political activity, gamers in general can be skewed as having very high or very low civic/political engagement.

I personally disbelieve the idea that gaming had anything to do with individuals participating or encouraging political or civic duties. If these individuals weren’t doing it before gaming, then there isn’t really any reason to believe that they will while gaming or in the future.

Cheers!

Greetings all!

This week we examined "Games as/ in Life". First off, what the heck is up with the slash in the title?! It has nothing to do with the games in life but yet it's there....weird...

Our week was particularly interesting because the articles were specially forward thinking. First was an article by a Henry Jenkins and David Thorburn titled "The Digital Revolution, the Informed Citizen, and the Culture of Democracy"(LINK for the Article). As you can tell from the dynamite title, very heavy information followed such as whether the Internet has caused a revolution or evolution. Thorburn and Jenkins focused on the "big picture" using examples from real-life political events. The other articles tackled equally big picture and weighty topics such as "The Civic Potential of Video Games" (LINK), "A Socio-Technical Vision of Democratic Knowledge Exchange" (LINK), and "Young Adults and Virtual Public Spheres." (LINK)

Alright, to be completely honest, even though I found these articles informative and very interesting, I found myself thinking that these highly educated individuals were taking the idea of gaming to a level which gamers do not typically want to go. Most people that I know who are heavy gamers are not that interested in politics or civic duty anything. They play games, on- and off-line, as a simple hobby or as a way to socialize with good friends.

I think that the most important aspect of gaming is providing a way to escape reality temporarily. It is a method of telling an engrossing story; escaping today's headache for something, or someone, else's reality. Playing games is a way to enjoy a world which may only exist in the imagination. Why muck it all up with real world issues? Doing so destroys the reason for playing!

Follow the Logic - Thoughts on Racism in Games

Greetings Everyone!

This week's discussion is on "Racism in Games" and, much like the topic of racism in other entertainment and artistic venues, it is a very divisive subject which can be, and is, hotly debated.

The following is a list of websites which editorialize this topic:

-A Pacific Citizen article titled "In Video Games the Bad Guys Come in All Shades of Stereotypes" and focuses upon Robert Parungao and his honors paper discussing research and his opinionated conclusions.

-A small blog post from Gamasutra about GTA Chinatown Wars.

-A Demographics Report on diversity within game developing companies.

-Lastly, a Gamasutra News editorial about racism in Resident Evil 5.

I would like to counter all of the above articles with a video by Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation:




(NOTE: Yahtzee talks about racism toward the end of the video and there's also some swearing).

While his video is supposed to be a humorous roast on games and everything within those games, I feel that he does have a valid point.

But above and beyond what others have to say let me make a very strong, compelling point which I feel is the clincher when it comes to the topic of racism in games:

In mainstream, games are considered to be entertaining "toys". Until they become recognized as something more than toys (such as works of art, methods of communication & instruction, a way to express the freedom of speech) then games will be constantly relegated or thought of as simple amusements. This prevents serious debate or discussion because then people will simply say "but it's only a game and shouldn't be taken seriously".

Additionally, once they are taken seriously, then games move into the realm of 'protected' under the laws of freedom of speech/freedom and therefore game creators now have a constitutional right to express such freedoms through games even if, or especially if, the content is offensive to some individuals. A good example of this is movies: many movies are created with intense racism/ageism/sexism yet are protected and often times encouraged because it creates points of views and opinions which are not of the norm.

It is vitally important to remember that when examining concepts of racism/sexism/ageism, these concepts can become social norms by widespread cultural acceptance. These stereotypical 'isms, though often times misleading and false, can become true by justifying said stereotypes through action and/or behavior. Once this happens, instead of being derogatory and demeaning, these 'isms become merely the truth told in a perhaps hurtful and crass way but truth nonetheless.

If games gain constitutional rights under "art" and "freedom of speech/expression" then new questions are raised such as where to draw the line on limits of expression/speech...as much as we hate to admit it, limits are placed upon our freedom of expression/speech all the time (i.e "do I have a right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater?").

I think that our wonderful capitalist market will determine whether such material becomes mainstream acceptable or not. It's quite a simple economic fact that if a game is not acceptable to the market, it will be rejected and therefore a financial flop. This alone dictates a limit as to how far a company will invest in $100 million dollar projects

Is this bad taste or really good marketing? I can't tell....

I think though that the blog post from Gamasutra summarizes the issue at stake relatively well:

"I'm a proponent of mature content in games, but I don't see the difference between trading drugs and trading vegetables. GTA is famous/infamous for its depictions of illicit activities, but I've developed an indifferent attitude towards games of its nature, because I don't see them as particularly new experiences. Call it insensitivity towards violence or drugs, but if you shoot someone or trade a bag of coke in a game, I don't find that shocking." - Jaime Kuroiwa

This is the problem and benefit inherit with games and movies in general: It can sensitize or desensitize the individual/s participating. Bottom line, games do have an influence but what sort of influence do they exercise? We the consumers decide that and not the game developer companies.



Peace!