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.