Part One:
We watch sporting events as fans of hockey, basketball, football and so forth – just like we go to concerts to listen to our favourite artists; We go to movies or watch movies on DVD and so forth….
What elements should (or could) games contain that would permit an audience to watch, consume or passively play?
I believe that video games are already a form of entertainment that can be consumed passively, just as many spectator sports are. Elements that make video games watch-able are: music, custom characters, bright colours, & increasingly detailed graphics. A game’s narrative can be alluring to those not willing to play, and therefore still consumable through watching someone else play it.
Have you ever watched someone play a video game, MMORPG or be immersed in a virtual world? If so – what captivated you? What didn’t? If not, imagine what might interest you if you were to watch a friend or relative play?
Sure you can join in and play but sometimes it is just as fun to watch. I’ve watched video games before, like when my family got guitar hero a lot of the time I preferred watching my brother and sister play because they were about 10 times better at it than i was. Similarly, thousands have viewed the “fasted guitar hero player” on YouTube with awe. The music and the speed are hypnotizing and the skill required to complete the game are definitely admirable. Also, the suspense builds up- watching certain video games is similar to certain genres of film. Horror, suspense, thriller, drama can all be seen in commercial video/pc games. Role-playing games are often recorded and put up on guild sites and youtube because they are both creative and interesting- and not only to those who participate.
How is this different/same as other media we consume?
What’s the difference between consuming media and passive play? Is there one?
Video games are similar to other media we consume because it is a commercial industry. It is an industry made for profit, so even just the selling and buying of various games is a form of consumption. Video game consumers have taken it to another level, there is a relationship between the consumer and the producer that is not just a one way street. Modding, fan-made videos, and fan based forums are just a few ways that the people who consume games, also produce other artifacts of the gaming industry. Its hard to say whether there is a difference between consuming media and passive play, but I would argue that there is a small difference. The idea of consuming media like radio or television makes me think of a sponge soaking up water. It does not have to move or think to consume the water it interacts with. The difference for video games is no matter how passively you play, you are still playing, interacting. You have a small amount of control on the outcome or on what happens on your screen, and that is the difference.
Part Two:
Create an outline of your research paper with an introduction, discussion section (with your three points, theory etc) and conclusion.
Write some points or notes for each section about what you’ll discuss. Lay out your paper with what you’ve blogged about already.
Intro:
The video game industry grows exponentially on a day to day basis. Its many artifacts and unique culture has come to be a key part of societies modern popular culture. Gamers in our society are no longer a ‘youth minority’, as folks of all ages have come to take part in some mode of gaming whether that be on a PC, console, arcade style, or handheld. Just like every great medium, video games have weathered their fair share of controversy. Stereotypes of games and gamers alike have attempted to tarnish the medium as ‘brainwashing’ or ‘silly’. With the popularity and relevance of video games in our society, it is clear that they cannot be labeled in this way. They are now seen as a ‘new media’ and a multi-million dollar industry all over the world. This paper looks into ‘edu-tainment’- a unique mix between traditional gaming and educational learning. There is much hype to jump to the conclusion that educational or serious games are nothing more than a joke. But, we must be fair and give this medium a chance just as we have in the past with television and film that were also introduced into the educational system. Serious games such as the BBC’s Climate Challenge offer players a fun, strategy style game that incorporates environmental policies and action plans. Similar games for change tackle poverty, abuse, healthcare, politics, news literacy, economics and human rights. Why not have fun while creating awareness on a serious global issue? The question is, whether these games have a real effect on the player. Phonetically based games have been seen to dramatically increase a young child’s ability to read and write. On the other hand, there is the argument that games like Doom or Grand Theft Auto teach children to hate and kill. This is a very important issue to debate due to the prevalence of video games and portable technology on which to play digital games. Using uses and gratifications theory, cultivation theory, as well as agenda setting theory this paper will examine the impact of such games and the socio-political significance of their reach. Clearly, learning is possible through games and video games, yet there is still a strong argument whether games as learning environments are a negative context or a positive context. Do video and computer games hegemonically distribute information and knowledge to a passive gamer, or can we give these gamers some credit? Is there a difference between learning violence and learning about global warming? This paper will make the argument that there is a difference, and that educational gaming does have a place in our children’s futures with the ability to make a serious impact.
Body:
Explanation of Climate Challenge: what is it, why choose it
Methods: discuss game play, content analysis/experience, what is the process you engaged into analyze/make argument/answer research question?
Examine current arguments and debates revolving ‘violence versus education’. Strengths & weaknesses of both sides.
Elaborate on theories and research
Uses & Gratifications
-why do people play games? learning or entertainment?
-people actively seek out media content, and use specific media for gratifications based on interest
-choices are unique based on values, beliefs, interests
Cultivation
-1. Msg system
2. What are the dominant msgs?
3. Cultivation: understanding
-this theory is for TV, problem is that Tv is produced by few cultural elite
-internet use changes this theory.. producers are more diverse, could really be anyone. In this case it is a large media corp. BBC
-content analysis: dominant message ..environmental policy/understanding. The game does not necessarily provide an ideology or narrative but does target young voters which is significant
-heavy versus light viewers. TV only provides 1% of world.. what about internet?
Agenda Setting
-theory places audience in a problematic place similar to cultivation theory, BUT again the medium is different. Not just a few elite gatekeepers
-Framing: literally links to other environmental sites, media, video, etc
-effect on gamer: relevancy & uncertainty come in to effect. Gaming is interactive so relevancy may not be as necessary because the actions get you involved not the content as much as on TV
Discuss importance, why is it necessary to analyze, critique and think about, etc?
-Prensky’s generational gap: digital natives and digital immigrants
-technological world and effects of an information society
-future educational strategies.. will fun and learning continue to disagree?
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the gaming industry seems to be making the connection that educational games are not just a fad. The argument that digital video games create violent youth seems to lack evidence, and largely ignore outside sources. Looking past this, it seems that there is no stopping educational gaming. Video games and computer games have the ability to teach, but more research is necessary to understand the best strategies to carry them out. Gamers will accept knowledge as long as it doesn’t mean a sacrifice in the level of entertainment. Overall, there is a large difference in how gamers react to certain information embedded in their game-play. Cultivation theory and agenda setting theory have argued for a passive audience in the past, but with the internet and digital gaming as a new medium, these theories reveal that there is a power shift in the distribution of knowledge and information. I would suggest that there is in-fact a difference between learning about violence and global warming from digital games. Although, as seen in this research paper, there is a serious need to develop new theoretical standpoints that concern themselves with the internet and gaming. How much do younger generations rely on the internet for information, and in the near future it will be acceptable to ask how much do they rely on video games? These questions are going to be increasingly important as the information society blurs with our societies love for entertainment and technology. Governments must predict that the industry is changing, and incorporate policy to allow students an inclusive relationship with technology. The digital divide must also be faced, what about kids that cannot afford educational games? The bigger picture is that digital games represent something more than just a hobby, and their effect on gamers of all ages will change the way we have come to think about games in our culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment