Games Past Present and Future

Games present an excellent opportunity for activism, or social change, particularly within multi-user online virtual worlds. In fact, as we saw in class, this is already happening on a somewhat significant scale. Other things we have seen, like awareness rallies in Second Life, demonstrate the potential for things like this to occur on an even larger scale.

One constraint to this could be access to technology. Although technological literacy is constantly improving in places like Canada and the United States, we rarely hear about how widespread it, and internet access, is in the developing world. Unfortunately, the developing world is where many of the world's major conflicts are ongoing, in places such as Darfur, Sudan or even Myanmar/Burma. While it is great that the internet can help to raise awareness and interest in these issues in Western cultures, it is somewhat disconcerting that access to the internet in the conflict-torn regions can be seriously limited, or even cut off completely.

One of the main benefits of using the internet for activism is the potential to engage a very young, passionate base of concerned people that can use laregly newfound methods of spreading the word. With the rapid spread of things like viral videos, games can become just another pipeline for information to be dispersed throughout the developed world.

In speaking on this topic, I feel like so much of what I say is "potential"; somehow this seems fitting, as I also feel like we are only beginning to reach the potential of the worldwide connection that the internet offers. Whether or not online worlds become further integrated into our mainstream cultures remains to be seen. Therefore, their effectiveness as a tool for social activism is yet to be fully determined.

I was a pretty big fan of video games going into this course, but taking it opened my eyes to many elements of the industry that I simply wasn't aware of. My opinion of games as a whole has definitely changed.

Things I have learned over the past few months:

1) I'm a popular culture major and had no idea of the scope and popularity of the modern MMORPGs and virtual worlds. The interesting thing is that as I became more and more aware of them because of this class, I started to see more about them all around me in the media and news that I was watching and reading. The fact that people can make their living off of virtual real estate and trading virtual goods is a hard concept to even comprehend at this point. It certainly demonstrates that these worlds have the chance to lead all of society in a very new, exciting, and hopefully more inclusive future.

2) Working on my research paper opened my eyes to the overall attitude of the video game industry towards women. Calling it chauvinistic or mysogynistic would be a bit harsh I figure, but there definately needs to be new types of people--namely, a lot more women in influential postitions--injected if the industry wants to work its way out of this historical oversight. As long as the industry is a boy's game, it will continue to produce boy's games.

3) Video Games are no longer just games. They are certainly worthy of study, being just as valid as studying film, television, music or any other form of popular culture. Unfortunately, I don't think much of the general populace sees games as entertainment that can potentially be extremely enriching to one's personal and social lives. The study of gaming might be looked down upon, but video games and virtual worlds, as one of the most innovative, interactive and inclusive forms of media that exists, offer more than just a gaming experience. They relate to how way we see ourselves, the way we spend our time and money, and how we see the world.

passive play

Personally, I don't believe that video games lend themselves particularly well to being experienced as a spectator. Games are the most interactive form of media we have, and as such, are intended to be played and not watched. Speaking from personal experience, there is nothing more boring than sitting and watching someone work their way through a Legend of Zelda-type game.
That being said, there is the chance that people could get more used to watching, and consuming video games in a passive manner as we venture further down the path of photorealism in our games. While I loathe watching someone play an adventure game, watching two buddies duke it out in a sports game can actually be fairly entertaining. Maybe this is due to the familiarity that I have with watching sports on TV (and these games tend to be really realistic mock-ups of the real things), or maybe its the head-to-head, two person trash talking that is the real draw.
I know that I found myself groaning a few months ago when I discovered that my favourite TV Sports channel, The Score, had added "Major League Gaming" to its programming lineup.
That's right. Major League Gaming.
I was able to put up with about three minutes of stereotypical video game dorks "fragging" each other--whatever that means--complete with team hierarchies, code lingo, and "action shots" of the players sitting there...playing the game that was onscreen. I believe they were playing Halo or Counterstrike or something. Needless to say, the whole thing is just about as exciting as it sounds.
As in, not very.
So, are viewers of games consumers, or are they passive players? To me, the only real answer is that they are passive. As noted before, the interactivity of video games is what makes them unique; without that interactivity, its hard for me to argue that they are consuming anything. If they gain a passive enjoyment out of watching someone play then eventually, they may become consumers themselves. Until then, they are passive members of a very active community.

Bill C-61

What is your reaction to the proposed Bill C-61? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

I strongly disagree with Bill C-61. I feel that it is more of an effort to appease powerful American interests than it is one to sort things out for Canadians. Many of the measures it tries to impose will be difficult, if not impossible to enforce, and in fact, many of the laws have been a joke for years.

What are the implications of C-61 to Canadians? What are some of the benefits and constraints of the proposed C-61 to consumers of media (you and me)?

The way I see it, it cuts back the freedom to manipulate digital freedom that we currently enjoy, whether legally or not. While the people trying to push this through have loudly proclaimed a $500 maximum penalty for violation of this bill, some digging reveals that in fact fines can range up to $20,000 for uploading copyrighted content to filesharing sites, or even places like YouTube. Critics of the bill such as Liberal MP Scott Brison have said that the bill could lead to a "police state". While this might be somewhat hyperbolous, it is certainly unsettling anytime our freedoms are taken from us within Canada.

Who ultimately benefits from the proposed Bill?

Media companies. To me, this is nothing more than an exercise in propoganda, aimed to scare Canadians out of copying or distributing new media. Some of the limitations it imposes are borderline ridiculous (no copies of a DVD, but making VHS copies is fine?) and will likely be just as impractical in five years as the current laws are now.

Virtual Community

Other than Facebook, which I would guess just about everybody in the class belongs to, I can think of a couple of virtual communities that I frequent, although to say I "belong" to them might be a stretch. Instead, I generally prefer to just "lurk"--i.e. Read the boards, but rarely if ever posting on them.

One of the main ones that I check out most days is the message board of U-Sector , an organized supporters group of Toronto FC, a pro soccer team in my home city. The board is centered around discussion of the team's performance and off-field moves, as well as a meeting point for the supporters to organize plans, songs and chants for the team.

Essentially, this site offers an opportunity for sports fans to come together and organize themselves without any physical contact. Of course, many of the main posters know each other in real life and put their internet plans into practice at every TFC home game. Perhaps because I am not a member of their group, I mostly feel reluctant to say my piece.

Race and Ethnicity in Digital Spaces

I'm not at all surprised by the experiences shared in these readings. It seems as if the virtual worlds are, unfortunately, somewhat a reflection of the real world, and all the ignorance and unfounded negativity that exists here.

The issues are much the same as those that face modern society (and have for many years), in terms of diversity and acceptance. Even in situations such as the Star Wars game that was metioned, in worlds where ethnicity is of no concern, they become a concern when put into the hands of humans. The anonymity and distance between different players certainly acts as an enabler for those with racist/xenophobic ideologies to espouse those behind the mask of the internet.

Many developers are looking into the idea of removing noticeable traces of gender or ethnicity in their characters. This is especially evidenced in RPG games, particularly those produced in Japan. Many characters, drawn in the popular anime style, have a somewhat androdgynous apperance. Of course, depending on your perspective, this could be read as either a positive or negative step.

Virtual worlds offer new possibilities for communication and networking. However, as evidenced through these articles, any hope that the virtual world could be devoid of real world ideologies is a somewhat Utopian line of thinking.

World of Warcraft

I chose to play World of Warcraft. It seems to be more action-intense, and if I were to play it, at least I know a couple of acquaintances that could help me get started on it. I chose a Tauren, due primarily to its visual apperance, and not much more beyond that: He just looks intimidating. I decided to be a hunter as I like the ability to travel with a pet and fight from long distances.

I would probably name my character "Spratticus" or some similar variation on my last name, but I like that one for this because of its closeness to Spartacus. Very warrior-ish. Tauren-esque. I would want my character to be a complete bad-@&%, as I honestly don't think I'd have much interest in joining up often with groups or guilds. The fact that the hunter is good at soloing with his animal sidekick is appealing, I would want to be a lone-wolf type in the game. This wouldn't be very similar to my real identity, but, not knowing much about the game, that is the persona I would want to project if I ever played it.

(Do you have any avatars/characters that you are using now in any type of video/computer game or virtual world? if so - what are they like? if not - why not?)

I guess the closest thing would be creating players in sports games based on myself, which I've done a few times in the past. It can be pretty fun to mess around with the apperance, but generally I try to model them pretty close on myself, just for the fact that it's fun to see yourself skating on a line with Mats Sundin, with "Spratt" written across your character's back. The enjoyment out of creating a character like that is that for most of us, it's the closest we'll ever get to making it to the pros.

I'm not really sure if an avatar's apperance or personality would matter, but from the readings this week (June 3rd), it certainly appears to matter for some. I find this kinda disheartening, but maybe it suggest that the virtual world is not as altogether utopian and different from real-world society as one might hope it is.

Theorizing Digital Cultures

GAME: Call of Duty 4

• Think of a research question – what do you want to know?

Does Call of Duty 4, a violent first person shooter that simulates modern warfare, normalize violence for its players?

• What theory would you use?/What theory does your research question stem from Why?

I will be using cultivation theory to examine my question. Cultivation theory, first proposed by George Gerbner, is the idea that over time, a constant barrage of media images serves to normalize such behaviours in the media.

• What kind of research would you conduct to answer your research question?

Ideas for research could include:

1. The use of quantitative qualitative analysis: discussion with players before, during and after they play
   
2. Observation of participants: Picking up on their reactions to violence
3. Series of surveys and/or interviews with players
4. Focus group discussions with players about violence in the game
   

• What limitations are there to your research approach?

It is, in reality, impossible to accurately determine bias amongst participants, or whether they are being truthful. With quantitative qualitative analysis, the data you collect is only as good/valid as your research participants wish--In many ways, you are at the mercy of them. Qualitative Quantitative analysis is good for objectivity, but I struggle to think of a useful application for it in this context.

• What are some of the weaknesses of the theory that you’re using?

Cultivation theory was originally developed by Gerbner for explaining individual's interpretations of television. For the most part, it assumes that the audience plays a passive role in the construction of meaning within media texts; Video games are certainly the most active participatory form of media we have today, so it is questionable whether the theory will fit perfectly with my research.

History of Gaming

Early video game consoles attracted mainstream interest for several reasons: Firstly, the simple novelty of playing interactive games through the television was an irresistible draw for many people. Beyond that however, the simple, intuitive nature of many early games ensured that they appealed a wide audience. With many of the early game consoles being limited in the amount of buttons offered to players, as well as processing power, designers compensated by coming up with games that were on one hand easy to play, but on the other, difficult to master. This is evidenced in many early arcade hits such as Space Invaders and Pac Man, which were incredibly addictive for those who got into them.

Though interest in games has risen and fallen a few times, they were for the most part an activity that offered at least something for most into the 1990s. I believe that the fifth generation of video game consoles, defined as 1993-2002 is where video games really started to appeal to a more narrow market. With the introduction of 3d graphics, games with increasingly complex and difficult gameplay, and controllers with upwards of 10 different buttons to learn, the game industry beagn to shut out the casual gamer, making video games a sort of closed world that appealed to only a certain percentage of the population (predominantly males under 40ish). Fortunately for the industry, this market has been groomed and grown up to be rabid about their games, willing to shell out about $500 every few years for the latest systems, and over $50 for many hit games. For every spectacular failure during this time period (Atari Jaguar), there were spectacular successes (Sony PlayStation).

With the introduction of the Nintendo Wii in 2007, we see one company trying to get back to the casual gamer. I still haven't tried it, but many people that I know who aren't gamers have told me that they love playing it. Owing very much to the pick-up-and-play mechanics of the motion based system, Nintendo has capitalized on the re-introduction of the casual gamer after faltering with their sixth generation GameCube. Their strategy seems to be paying off--As of January, they had overtaken XBox 360, Microsoft's far more complex next-gen console, as the current generation's sales leader.

Perhaps Nintendo's success will encourage a back-to-basics approach for the entire industry. Alternatively, we could see an increasing split within it, with one faction pandering to the casual crowd as the other tries to keep the hardcore fanbase happy.

We'll likely have to wait for the 8th generation of gaming to find out how it all goes down.

Introduction

Give a short introduction of yourself:
My name is Jon Spratt, I'm 21 years old and I am born and raised in Toronto (Don Mills area).

Have you had any experiences Gaming (PC or Console)?

I have an older brother, an older sister and a younger brother, so I have been playing video games for literally as long as I can remember. I definately started out on NES (original Nintendo), but during most of my childhood I was a Sega Genesis kid.

If so – what games do you play? What is your favourite game? Why?

In recent years I have played mostly sports games. I've probably spent more time playing FIFA during university than I have spent doing homework. As far as an all-time favourite game, its hard to argue with Super Mario Bros. 3. Beautiful in its simplicity, and is just as fun to play on an emulator today as it was for me around 1990.

Why do you think virtual worlds, games, gamers & gaming is important to talk about?

The video game industry is becoming an increasingly major part of our Western culture, and is becoming simply too large to brush off as a distraction. For example, Grand Theft Auto IV just moved $500 million worth of sales in its first week. Virtual worlds offer new possibilities for connectivity, and opens up a new range of identies and communications that are available to people.