Video Games: Beyond Passive Media
Despite their enormous popularity, video games tend to get a bad rap in mainstream media dialogues. If their shrill warnings are to be believed, these addictive and violent games are making our children into sociopathic loners; they ruin marriages and families and are to blame for obesity, ADD, poor eyesight, depression and are, above all, a colossal waste of time. Although a case might indeed be made to support some of these criticisms, video games are just a medium; one might as well accuse books or movies or “the web” of causing any number of social ills to the same effect.
That said, video games are a tremendously powerful medium that are distinct in many ways from traditional forms of media such as books, film, television and even most web-content. To illustrate this, I selected talks by David Perry and Jane McGonigal and the article “The Rhetoric of Video Games” by Ian Bogost for your consideration this week, and ask that you give the following questions some thought as you watch and read them.
What differentiates video games from other mediums?
How do these differences impact the way people are affected by video games?
Is “play” a waste of time?
I would recommend tackling these sources in the order listed, but it’s not strictly necessary.
1. David Perry: Are games better than life? (Video from TED.com). If you’re pressed for time, go ahead and skip to the 10-minute mark and focus on the student-video. Also, bear in mind, these examples are already five years old.
2. Ian Bogost, “The Rhetoric of Video Games” from The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning.
3. Jane McGonigal: Gaming can make a better world. (Video from TED.com) She also outlines much the same ideas in this article if you’d prefer to read or want additional details; Be a Gamer, Save the World.
I look forward to reading and hearing your thoughts.
Let’s start with the videos because, let’s face it, I would much rather watch a video than read an article (not that I didn’t read the article… I just skipped it until I knew I had to write this response). The David Perry TED talk was quite informative. I really enjoyed the student video and think it gave lots of food for thought. Having grown up in a time of incredible leaps forward in video gaming, I have not played many games. I feel sort of left out now, because I see what value there can be in video games, but at the same time, I like the real world a lot. I agree with the student and Perry that video game developers have a lot more responsibility now than they used to because of the mingling of reality and virtual reality. Which brings us to McGonigal.
Now, put your hands up if you think of _Harry Potter_ when you hear McGonigal? *frantic hand wave* Okay, now that that’s out of the way…. I really liked this video as well and think McGonigal made some interesting points, especially in reference to the way that game play actually changed real life behaviours for a number of people in her studies. I have thought about the links between violence/bad behaviour and video games, but never really the possibility of positive behavioural change through virtual game play. My world is being blown apart!! I think it will be interesting to see if more mainstream games tend toward this notion. Or maybe that would become too didactic and hardcore gamers wouldn’t play those games? Not too sure.
Now, onto the article. I never knew much about _Animal Crossing_ before, though I am now even less inclined to play it (having enough financial concern in reality does not make me want to assume a mortgage and other debts in a virtual space). I can see the benefit for younger children, to teach them some of the intricacies of finance and wealth, though, so don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the game has no value. I really appreciate Bogost’s assertion on p. 119: “In other words, video games make claims about the world, which players can understand, evaluate, and deliberate.” Good material with which to exercise my brain muscles.
I did find myself getting a bit lost within the main exploration of Rhetoric and Procedural Rhetoric, but I still really enjoyed the article and look forward to thinking more about video games as a kind of literacy that allows us (game-players) to critique and create social systems within reality. Good stuff! Now bring on the discussion!
Rob
18 Mar 11 at 1:34 pm
P.S. I think I addressed the questions in a roundabout way within my post, but if I seem to have missed something, point a virtual finger at me and I’ll address it!
Rob
18 Mar 11 at 1:34 pm
I also really liked the videos this week. I’m not a gamer either, and have never seen the value in playing video games; I would much rather not be staring at a screen. So, like Rob, I’d never thought much about the power and possibility of video games. I would say that the major difference between video games and other mediums is the definitive decision-making processes that effect the outcome. With everything else, you choose once and then it’s passive. Gaming is interactive, and I don’t think that anyone’s ever questioned the importance of “play”. Educational sites and marketers have caught on that children (and adults) would rather _do_ something to learn, rather than be passive. I just don’t think that there’s enough discussion or conversation happening with the people playing the games to help them understand what they are learning. Educational sites often seem to think that games are teaching children things. Often, those games are so low in interaction (place the block in the correct bin) that it’s not necessarily a learning process-more of a process of elimination without thought behind it. I think kids (and adults) also skip past anything that seems remotely didactic to get to the next phase of the game. So they may know how to place things on a timeline, but they haven’t actually paid any attention to what that timeline is about. Learning, schmurning. I want to win and move on.
So, that being said, will those skills that people learn playing video games be transferred to “real-world” skills? And what is it that makes world of warcraft more enjoyable than this Animal Crossing game? (that sounds super lame to me, by the way. I say shoot Tom Nook, and sell him as stewing meat. Supply and demand is part of the economy too…) I think that there’s something cathartic in killing things, and shooting trolls and giants. There’s nothing cathartic in amassing online debt to buy a new house. A friend of mine once told me that he much preferred watching violence in films over sex in films. When questioned on it, he said it was because watching someone crush the enemy’s skull, he knew he couldn’t be doing that. Watching a sex scene, he knew he could be doing that, but that he wasn’t. I think that this idea of “real-life” situations vs. fantastical situations in video games is one that will be the biggest challenge people like McGonigal will face in changing the world. There’s some intangible pleasure in shooting zombies; it fills that need to escape that some people get from books, others from movies, and some, apparently a lot, get from video games.
skmatson
19 Mar 11 at 10:32 am
Rob: I’m right with you on the Harry Potter reference. It ensured that I would watch the video with great haste! Too bad she wasn’t wearing wizarding robes to boot.
Onto this week’s reading/videos:
Schuyler, props on choosing some really interesting material for this week. Like Stacey and Rob, I have little to no experience with video games (although give me Mario Kart and an N64 and I will school you), and I tend to lean towards the belief that they are, at worst, a promoter of violence, and at best cause players to be lethargic and anti-social. But I definitely have just cause to rethink my position.
I found David Perry’s talk to be particularly interesting, especially the video he shows at the end. We’ve talked about the ability of video games to provoke real emotion in class before, but I was particularly struck by the fact that he had driven more miles in a video game than in his real car, and how that has impacted his driving ability. I suppose it makes sense – everything you do impacts you in some way – but it’s quite profound that one can feel more prepared for real life because of a video game.
I have to say, though – I’m wildly skeptical of McGonigal’s theory. In fact, if it wasn’t for the fact that she’s a really dynamic speaker and definitely does not look like most people you associate with gaming (http://www.metrolic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/paul_movie_poster_02-530×785.jpg) , I don’t think anything that she said would’ve been taken seriously. I think some of what she said is interesting, especially about how people are much more motivated when they have an attainable goal put in front of them. Mostly because this is true, and it’s played out in real life all the time. But the games that she talked about – and spent less than a fifth of her talk explaining – sound incredibly boring and she didn’t at all explain how these games are changing real life, which I feel is a massive hole in her argument.
I’m definitely looking forward to discussion this week.
jillian
20 Mar 11 at 4:27 pm
From a very young age I was called “terrible” every time I played video games. It was awful!. So in order to feel better I start to despise that “games” and find something else to be good at: reading books. And as books were socially accepted I feel “superior” when I was reading while my friends were playing banal and addictive video games.
Can you imagine what a surprise I had when I realized that they are basically the same thing! In both situations we live in a virtual reality, believing that we are saving a/the world of its destruction. What I am trying to said is that the reflection, readings and videos about video games had totally change my point of view about them. (I am thinking in buying a wii!)
Now, in a more serious perspective, I will try to express a few thoughts about video games in a classroom context.
One of the principals problems, when I prepare a class, is to make it interesting and exciting for my students. Education is not often associated as entertainment and I think that this is a big problem. I am not saying that schools have to become in a circus or funfair, but they have to appeal the interests of the students because they are the ones who are sitting in the class for long hours.
This point is developed by Ali Carr-Chellman in “Gaming to re-engage boys in learning” (http://www.ted.com/talks/ali_carr_chellman_gaming_to_re_engage_boys_in_learning.html). Despite the generalizations that have her talk, I think that one of her points is key in education: teachers must be interested in the culture that surround students and, in the same spirit, let the students develop the themes that they are interested in (even if they are of death, war and destruction of some worlds).
Video games as difference from other mediums not only work with emotions but interaction and own experience of their players as is developed in David Perry talk. In this sense they are a great tool to engage more deep learning in students, because students learn more when they are interested and involved in the themes that are taught to them. I think that we have to develop video games not only to save the world but education too. To make it more interesting, appealing and recreational, because as we more learn is trough play.
magdalena
20 Mar 11 at 7:51 pm
enjoying the comments guys. I’ll save my responses for our discussion tomorrow, but Jillian, you’re on for Mario Kart any day, any place; I have no way to prove it, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if I’ve logged more miles on those virtual N64 tracks than I have in my car 🙂
schuyler
20 Mar 11 at 9:34 pm
Wow! So much interesting stuff to talk about that I hardly know where to start.
Having been a video game player for practically my whole life, and a developer of them for more than a few years, I think I’m well aware of the potential that they have. Maybe it’s my old-skool ways, but I just don’t care about graphics and sound quality in games any more. They passed the “good enough” mark for me about five years ago. I’m surprised that David Perry didn’t list “narrative” and “gameplay” on his list of notable game elements, but those are the two that I tend to pay the most attention to. There’s not all much that I got out Perry’s video, though the student video was interesting. It was strange how he seemed to pretty much ignore all the ambivalent and downright negative implications of the video in his brief discussion afterwards, but I’m sure we’ll get into that in class.
I found the Bogost article especially intriguing, and I really like the concept of “procedural rhetoric”. As a computer programmer, I immediately understood his definition of “procedural”, and I think he made some interesting points about this area of rhetoric. He made a slight concession to this when he mentioned that “Models of all kinds can be thought of as examples of procedural rhetoric”, but as a board gamer, I found it interesting to think of the long history that procedural rhetoric has had, going back far earlier than digital gaming. The ancestor of Snakes and Ladders was created in India to teach children about reincarnation, for example. There are some interesting modern examples, such as War on Terror, which is a satirical look at global politics and Empires choose to define terrorism.
Stacy, I think your about educational games being, ironically, low in interaction is very well said. It’s a shame that the main pedagogical strength that games have, their interactivity, is so often under-utilized. This may be my bias showing, but I think that digital games have a lot to learn from the cardboard-based siblings in this area.
Lastly, I had some issues with McGonigal’s video. I’m really glad that she is doing the work that she is doing, and I hope that she’s right in her hopes that games can save the world, but I kind of doubt it. Her main argument/metaphor about the Lydians’ invention of gaming is flimsy at best. I found her point about “Social Fabric” the most interesting to me. I don’t play online games much–I prefer weaving my social fabric in physical space–but the typical way that I see people interacting in online games seems to be the polar opposite of that, as noted in the first comment under the video. That being said, the kind of social fabric creation that she talks about is exactly why I love playing board games, so those kind of connections are definitely possible in gaming.
I think that’s enough for now, looking forward to the talk!
kifty
20 Mar 11 at 11:33 pm