Player and Controller

Being a gamer this is probably the best topic I can think of for myself.

There are many stereotypes for video games that promote violence and sex, but at the same time we can also say that movies promote the same thing. They also say that video games are for lonely, antisocial people. But think about what people get in virtual worlds; they are rewarded more for the changes they make by achieving through leveling up and currency, they get more feedback from their community, they can achieve more things in smaller spans of time and feel positively rewarded for what they do.

I am not denying that video games do utilize violence in their interface along with using sex to sell the game, but I don’t believe that video games promote violent behavior in the real world. In our project we will be discussing how sexism is prevalent in gaming. League of Legends on professional terms, is a male dominated competitive sport. The only female that represents the face of League of Legends and Riot in tournaments is Shocks, who is a player herself, but mainly a newscaster and does the hosting of the game with introductions and sometimes appears on the analytical table.

I don’t believe that video games induce violent behavior outside of virtual world. It’s foolish and very passive to just write off the reason someone is a serial killer because they happen to play video games. Digitized Lives states that 97% of Americans play video games and only a small fraction become serial killers, but 100% of humans use air to breath and we don’t attribute breathing as reason why people are serial killers. There are far more factors and prevalent themes of violence that those 97%  are exposed to through the daily news and media.

The book also argues the difference between the “gaming world” vs “the real world”. There isn’t a direct link between what happens in the media vs in the real world. We don’t just happen to pick up a gun and forget we’re in the real world. Gamers are aware of the difference between the two. This is a myth that needs to be broken.

I do believe that some of the good things that video games promote a strong desire to achieve and learn. All games set their players in an unfamiliar environment or interface and following under certain constraints and rules asked to achieve a goal. Players will be induced with motivation and positive feelings to achieve the goal of the game. Why can’t we do the same things in the real world with solving real problems big or small?

Gaming promotes us to stick with the problem and think critically about the situation and actively collaborate with others in order to achieve a goal. Urgent Optimism is another way of saying believing that achieving is possible, Social Fabrics that creates more connections and trusting more, and given Epic Meanings that allow the player to feel that what they’re doing is important and valued. We get this feeling in the virtual world that we have the power and ability to change the world and make a difference, but how can we change the location and feel the same way in the real world.

One of my favorite Ted Talks is with Jane McGonigal who makes reference to this “Epic Win” feeling in which the player achieves something that they didn’t predict or believe they could achieve. There are many moments in gaming that produce this feeling that go beyond the goal of the game and overachieve.

She also mentions how gamers are being utilized in the interface of video games to solve real problems such as finding alternative solutions to problems and thus the community as a whole has a larger audience that provides feedback that play under the certain constraints and rules.

Revolution with a Click

Let me first make note of a couple concepts before talking about the article to relate to.

In our class we discuss whether or not these technological products made by humans have helped or harmed our community and environment. Arguments can be made for claims. The media in particular holds a very powerful sway in how political status and government is sometimes dictated.

In my other class, Soc 430, we talked about a sociologist who mentions this notion of “The Tragedy of Culture”. Defined as a situation in which objective cultural objects dominate and (possibly disempower) individuals and society. In the words of Reddit –> tldr; All our technological dependence is taking over and weakens us as a person and us as a collective hive mind. These objective cultural objects can be translated to physical devices such as computers and cellphones which have become a secondary part of our life. Arguments have been made that these technologies make us impatient, our memory is very short term, and in general makes us dumber and a slave to the machine.

In contrast to this idea of The Tragedy of Culture”, we can consider the positive strides we’ve made with these technologies too. In this article we talk about the Egyptians overcome oppression, sexism, police brutality, unemployment, injustice, and poverty. There is a saying; “Once out on the internet; it’s out there forever”. I don’t actually know the exact wording to the saying, but you get what I mean. It’s out there for good and there is no taking it back.

Post-dethroning, citizens continue to fight for their freedom and against injustice. Their mode of bringing a sense of community and standing together as one: The internet, more specifically, Facebook and cellphones. With these devices they can now upload it for the world to see and make a commotion about the injustice being done to them. Standing against your leaders is hard to do in person, but the facebook and other social media allowed them to convene in secret, plan, and riot against the police together in greater numbers.

This incident is almost parallel and identical to another issue that happened in the Middle East. This was considered the Arab Spring conflict in which a Fruit seller was being bullied, looted, and blackmailed into keeping their stand. Unable to take the torment any longer, he went to the police and asked why nothing was being done, which he was faced with rejection. Soon after he set himself on fire feeling abandoned by the authorities that were meant to protect him. He became the straw that broke the camels back that started a revolution.
In the article, Khaled Said was the catalyst to the Egyptian revolution where he was faced with injustice which costed him his life. Like the Arabs, the Egyptian government faced a massive force that was knocking on their door online and offline. In an attempt to suppress the revolution they tried violent retaliation and taking down the internet in general. Unfortunately at this point, not only are they fighting against their own people, but foreign powers that were witnessing the events unfold which would reflect badly on them if they tried stopping them. Of course this failed.

It only goes to show that with a click, a world online and offline is behind you.
Here is the video about the Arab Spring Conflict