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.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)