"Although the vast majority of studies undertaking the examination of electronic games and the emergence of a gaming culture deny that games are addictive, a stereotype of the game player as addicted continues to circulate in various strands of ego-psychology and pedagogical study and, with greater force and political affect, in popular culture, news media and governmental rhetoric."
"However, it does remain a fact that the stereotyping of gameplay as addictive continues, and it comes into play in submissions to censorship boards in various countries, it informs government ministers and politicians and lawmakers in their attitude to gaming, it has discernible indirect effects on industry and development funding, it is related to the capacity to study gaming-and to fund that study-within universities and it relates to self-attitudes to gameplay."
"New technologies have frequently been the subject of anxiety and apprehension, particularly in popular culture representations in films such as The Matrix or television series such as The X-Files (Cooper, 2002)."
"Rather, a thorough body of work that addresses the concerns that gaming is addictive is needed, and particularly work that broadens the scope of gaming by utilising cultural studies and uses/ gratifications notions in favour of an overly simplistic technological determinist understanding of the emergence of contemporary game culture"
"The transference of addiction rhetoric to discourses relating activities that may require repetitiveness or even have compulsive qualities is not limited to games, but has been similarly applied to gambling (Griffiths, 1998), sexual compulsion (Young, 1998) and pornography use (Pornography & Sexual Violence, 1983) among others"
" the medical and scientific discourses around chemical drugs, addiction is often defined either as processual behavioural change related to repetitive experience in socio-psychological disciplines, or neuroadaption to stimulation (such as psychoactive chemicals) among the more biochemically-oriented understandings of addiction. Either way, any concept of addiction involves a notion of behaviour change and a desire for or experience of repetition."
"It is variously one or several of these concepts that are used in digital addiction rhetoric to produce the figure or personage of the "frequent" or "heavy-use" game player as suffering an addiction, as an addict. Often this is seen simultaneously as a psychological disorder and through a model in which addiction is determined through that to which one is addicted-digital media in this case (e.g., Holliday, 2000)."
"In an interview on the cultural semiotics and connotations of drug use and dependence, Jacques Derrida refers to a notion of the "diction" of "addiction" as a set of significatory characteristics that are applied to drug users and which bind the applicant within a particular set of ideological and political valencies (Derrida, 1995)."
"Lister et al (2003), indicate a dichotomy between computer-mediated communication forms (CMC) and videogames that is supported by several of the following binaries: creative content versus mindless entertainment; adult users versus youth consumers; fluid identity versus hypermasculinity; sociality versus commodified space; tool versus toy"
"Addiction is sometimes presented as an experience of moral disorder, a physical failing, a social failing, or as an infectious disease that must be contained or monitored for fear of spreading addiction from one body to another (Lart, 1998)"
"The US Congress in both 2000 and 2002 discussed legislation to limit violent content and more tightly regulate video games; in Australia a restricted (to adults) classification of games for those which would ordinarily be banned was opposed amidst a vocal lobby and a media moral panic; in New Zealand, the PlayStation 2 game Manhunt was recently banned by chief censor in the Film and Literature Office Bill Hastings on the basis that it was violence per se, not gameplay (InGaming, 2003"
"The notion that immersion becomes pleasurable is not without its roots in the rhetoric of chemical drug use, and works to support a discursive matrix presenting violence, drugs and gameplay as interrelated or, indeed, undifferentiated. Certainly it is the case that a game’s form requires a participant player to engage with a narrative in an interactive way around a goal-oriented main character."
It differs because this is not a game review. There are similiar elements that that place through out the article i read. In come cases it seemed as if the writer was talking from a personal point of view, and then other cases where he was taking a professional point of view and expressing that. I feel like an academic article in some cases is more credible because of its sources, but at the same time with traditional game reviews and new games journalism, the language and research done is very credible. I feel like the question has so many answers, either being the right one.
]]>
In my experience with the gaming world, I have seen more aggression while playing games like Madden Football, NCAA Football, NBA Jam, and these are not violent games. There are no guns, murder, stealing, sex, going on at all. What you have to look at is the word violence. Violence is not limited to guns and murder, which society would consider the ‘norm’. If you look at Sonic the HedgeHog, sonic uses his body to defeat the enemy and is reward with gold coins. Compare this, shooting a zombie in the head for the 100th time, or knocking the helmet off of a receiver, causing him to leave the game. What is more violent? I have played the violent games such as DOOM and Grand Theft Auto and their nothing short of violence in games such as Medal of Honor or Splinter Cell. All games with the same point to defeat the enemy to reach you next goal or next objective. I feel that people are trying to find answers or solutions to the violence that is happening in today’s society. It seems as if it’s a fall back for society, that it provides a solution to an ever-growing violent society.
In the early 90s, action games like Dune and first-person shooters like Wolfenstein emerged. More recent games like Quake, Half-Life, and System Shock are so graphically real and mentally absorbing in their storylines, you don’t just play the games anymore, and you are part of the game. These game worlds have very few laws, if any at all, governing what goes on inside them. It is a dynamic that is limited only by the imagination of the designer and the desire of the game player to be absorbed in the fantasy. No holographic policeman exists in the virtual world to enforce what is right. Gamers are left to do what is right in their own eyes. This freedom to influence our children has many parents concerned.
Two studies published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2000 clearly demonstrate that violent video games do negatively affect the behavior of those who play them. One study demonstrated that graphically violent video games produce an immediate increase in aggressive thoughts and behavior. The other study found that violent game play not only increased aggressive behavior, but also produced a long-term, real life impact on the behavior and relationships of the players.
I feel that violent video games, game consul or PC, can affect the player in the following ways. The first way is with the player identifying with the aggressor. In “first-person” video games, the player assumes the identity of the shooter and sees the world through the character’s eyes. In effect, the game puts the weapon in the hands of the player to heighten the game’s impact as the player kills the enemy. This study found that players became emotionally involved with their character and “enjoyed” killing the bad guys. It is one thing to watch the movie Terminator and stand witness to his destruction, but it’s another thing to actually be the terminator and engage in the same actions as him. Now As a result of identifying with the aggressor the player develops positive attitudes toward the use of violence, a player gets reward with the destructions of the enemies. A personal experience I had with this was with the game Mortal Combat. Every time I killed my opponent, I moved up to the next level and so forth continued to the “top of the mountain” to face the grand master. So I would get excited when I would finish my opponent. Players also develop expectations that others will behave aggressively, a player can assume that others have similar attitudes of aggression and there for a game player can come to the belief that violent solutions are effective and appropriate for solving problems in life. Some people are easily influenced and others are not. In my case I could tell the difference between a game and reality. But not everyone can. There are game players who divulge in some of these games and are so consumed by a game that they start to relate them to reality. "Violent video games provide a forum for learning and practicing aggressive solutions to conflict situations," said Dr. Anderson. "In the short run, playing a violent video game appears to affect aggression by priming aggressive thoughts. Longer-term effects are likely to be longer lasting as well, as the player learns and practices new aggression-related scripts that can become more and more accessible for use when real-life conflict situations arise."
Secondly, the game player actively participates in the violence. Numerous studies have found that playing violent video games is a way to rehearse violent behaviors and makes it easier to bring that behavior into real life. If you practice shooting basketballs thousands of times, you get better at scoring. If you practice killing thousands of times, you get better at that as well. I give you the example of the Columbine shooters. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had been playing “first-person shooters” for more than a year before that fateful day. When the time came to “play the game” in the real world, they were ready. So as a result of actively participating in the violence, these game players develop a total disregard for societal norms, property rights, and even the general value of other lives. The player see the world as a violent, unsafe place where everyone is out to get you, society is trying to destroy the very life you live and breath. The player learns that aggressive actions against others, such as fighting and shooting, may be appropriate, even necessary in certain cases. Violent video games have an addictive nature, and for an aggressive performance, players receive constant and immediate reinforcement in the form of visual and auditory stimulation during a kill. With special effects such as exploding body parts, blood, gore, and general mayhem it provides an excellent environment for learning aggression. "One study reveals that young men who are habitually aggressive may be especially vulnerable to the aggression-enhancing effects of repeated exposure to violent games," said psychologists Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., and Karen E. Dill, Ph.D. "The other study reveals that even a brief exposure to violent video games can temporarily increase aggressive behavior in all types of participants."
So as a result of the addictive nature of violent video games I feel that excessive exposure contributes to aggressive personality traits in the player, and further playing can make an already aggressive person even more aggressive. The player becomes more aggressive, changes his outlook on life and socializing, and tends to socialize with others who demonstrate similar attitudes of aggression and finally the player’s socialization with teachers, parents, and non-aggressive peers are likely to degenerate. The more realistic the games are, the stronger the negative impact.
In my experience with the gaming world, I have seen more aggression while playing games like Madden Football, NCAA Football, NBA Jam, and these are not violent games. There are no guns, murder, stealing, sex, going on at all. What you have to look at is the word violence. Violence is not limited to guns and murder, which society would consider the ‘norm’. If you look at Sonic the HedgeHog, sonic uses his body to defeat the enemy and is reward with gold coins. Compare this, shooting a zombie in the head for the 100th time, or knocking the helmet off of a receiver, causing him to leave the game. What is more violent? I have played the violent games such as DOOM and Grand Theft Auto and their nothing short of violence in games such as Medal of Honor or Splinter Cell. All games with the same point to defeat the enemy to reach you next goal or next objective. I feel that people are trying to find answers or solutions to the violence that is happening in today’s society. It seems as if it’s a fall back for society, that it provides a solution to an ever-growing violent society.
In the early ‘90s, action games like Dune and first-person shooters like Wolfenstein emerged. More recent games like Quake, Half-Life, and System Shock are so graphically real and mentally absorbing in their storylines, you don’t just play the games anymore, and you are part of the game. These game worlds have very few laws, if any at all, governing what goes on inside them. It is a dynamic that is limited only by the imagination of the designer and the desire of the game player to be absorbed in the fantasy. No holographic policeman exists in the virtual world to enforce what is right. Gamers are left to do what is right in their own eyes. This freedom to influence our children has many parents concerned.
Two studies published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2000 clearly demonstrate that violent video games do negatively affect the behavior of those who play them. One study demonstrated that graphically violent video games produce an immediate increase in aggressive thoughts and behavior. The other study found that violent game play not only increased aggressive behavior, but also produced a long-term, real life impact on the behavior and relationships of the players.
I feel that violent video games, game consul or PC, can affect the player in the following ways. The first way is with the player identifying with the aggressor. In “first-person” video games, the player assumes the identity of the shooter and sees the world through the character’s eyes. In effect, the game puts the weapon in the hands of the player to heighten the game’s impact as the player kills the enemy. This study found that players became emotionally involved with their character and “enjoyed” killing the bad guys. It is one thing to watch the movie Terminator and stand witness to his destruction, but it’s another thing to actually be the terminator and engage in the same actions as him. Now As a result of identifying with the aggressor the player develops positive attitudes toward the use of violence, a player gets reward with the destructions of the enemies. A personal experience I had with this was with the game Mortal Combat. Every time I killed my opponent, I moved up to the next level and so forth continued to the “top of the mountain” to face the grand master. So I would get excited when I would finish my opponent. Players also develop expectations that others will behave aggressively, a player can assume that others have similar attitudes of aggression and there for a game player can come to the belief that violent solutions are effective and appropriate for solving problems in life. Some people are easily influenced and others are not. In my case I could tell the difference between a game and reality. But not everyone can. There are game players who divulge in some of these games and are so consumed by a game that they start to relate them to reality. "Violent video games provide a forum for learning and practicing aggressive solutions to conflict situations," said Dr. Anderson. "In the short run, playing a violent video game appears to affect aggression by priming aggressive thoughts. Longer-term effects are likely to be longer lasting as well, as the player learns and practices new aggression-related scripts that can become more and more accessible for use when real-life conflict situations arise."(cite)
Secondly, the game player actively participates in the violence. Numerous studies have found that playing violent video games is a way to rehearse violent behaviors and makes it easier to bring that behavior into real life. If you practice shooting basketballs thousands of times, you get better at scoring. If you practice killing thousands of times, you get better at that as well. I give you the example of the Columbine shooters. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had been playing “first-person shooters” for more than a year before that fateful day. When the time came to “play the game” in the real world, they were ready. So as a result of actively participating in the violence, these game players develop a total disregard for societal norms, property rights, and even the general value of other lives. The player see the world as a violent, unsafe place where everyone is out to get you, society is trying to destroy the very life you live and breath. The player learns that aggressive actions against others, such as fighting and shooting, may be appropriate, even necessary in certain cases. Violent video games have an addictive nature, and for an aggressive performance, players receive constant and immediate reinforcement in the form of visual and auditory stimulation during a kill. With special effects such as exploding body parts, blood, gore, and general mayhem it provides an excellent environment for learning aggression. "One study reveals that young men who are habitually aggressive may be especially vulnerable to the aggression-enhancing effects of repeated exposure to violent games," said psychologists Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., and Karen E. Dill, Ph.D. "The other study reveals that even a brief exposure to violent video games can temporarily increase aggressive behavior in all types of participants."(cite)
So as a result of the addictive nature of violent video games I feel that excessive exposure contributes to aggressive personality traits in the player, and further playing can make an already aggressive person even more aggressive. The player becomes more aggressive, changes his outlook on life and socializing, and tends to socialize with others who demonstrate similar attitudes of aggression and finally the player’s socialization with teachers, parents, and non-aggressive peers are likely to degenerate. The more realistic the games are, the stronger the negative impact.
In my experience with the gaming world, I have seen more aggression while playing games like Madden Football, NCAA Football, NBA Jam, and these are not violent games. There are no guns, murder, stealing, sex, going on at all. What you have to look at is the word violence. Violence is not limited to guns and murder, which society would consider the ‘norm’. If you look at Sonic the HedgeHog, sonic uses his body to defeat the enemy and is reward with gold coins. Compare this, shooting a zombie in the head for the 100th time, or knocking the helmet off of a receiver, causing him to leave the game. What is more violent? I have played the violent games such as DOOM and Grand Theft Auto and their nothing short of violence in games such as Medal of Honor or Splinter Cell. All games with the same point to defeat the enemy to reach you next goal or next objective. I feel that people are trying to find answers or solutions to the violence that is happening in today’s society. It seems as if it’s a fall back for society, that it provides a solution to an ever-growing violent society.
In the early ‘90s, action games like Dune and first-person shooters like Wolfenstein emerged. More recent games like Quake, Half-Life, and System Shock are so graphically real and mentally absorbing in their storylines, you don’t just play the games anymore, and you are part of the game. These game worlds have very few laws, if any at all, governing what goes on inside them. It is a dynamic that is limited only by the imagination of the designer and the desire of the game player to be absorbed in the fantasy. No holographic policeman exists in the virtual world to enforce what is right. Gamers are left to do what is right in their own eyes. This freedom to influence our children has many parents concerned.
Two studies published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2000 clearly demonstrate that violent video games do negatively affect the behavior of those who play them. One study demonstrated that graphically violent video games produce an immediate increase in aggressive thoughts and behavior. The other study found that violent game play not only increased aggressive behavior, but also produced a long-term, real life impact on the behavior and relationships of the players.
I feel that violent video games, game consul or PC, can affect the player in the following ways. The first way is with the player identifying with the aggressor. In “first-person” video games, the player assumes the identity of the shooter and sees the world through the character’s eyes. In effect, the game puts the weapon in the hands of the player to heighten the game’s impact as the player kills the enemy. This study found that players became emotionally involved with their character and “enjoyed” killing the bad guys. It is one thing to watch the movie Terminator and stand witness to his destruction, but it’s another thing to actually be the terminator and engage in the same actions as him. Now As a result of identifying with the aggressor the player develops positive attitudes toward the use of violence, a player gets reward with the destructions of the enemies. A personal experience I had with this was with the game Mortal Combat. Every time I killed my opponent, I moved up to the next level and so forth continued to the “top of the mountain” to face the grand master. So I would get excited when I would finish my opponent. Players also develop expectations that others will behave aggressively, a player can assume that others have similar attitudes of aggression and there for a game player can come to the belief that violent solutions are effective and appropriate for solving problems in life. Some people are easily influenced and others are not. In my case I could tell the difference between a game and reality. But not everyone can. There are game players who divulge in some of these games and are so consumed by a game that they start to relate them to reality. "Violent video games provide a forum for learning and practicing aggressive solutions to conflict situations," said Dr. Anderson. "In the short run, playing a violent video game appears to affect aggression by priming aggressive thoughts. Longer-term effects are likely to be longer lasting as well, as the player learns and practices new aggression-related scripts that can become more and more accessible for use when real-life conflict situations arise."(cite)
Secondly, the game player actively participates in the violence. Numerous studies have found that playing violent video games is a way to rehearse violent behaviors and makes it easier to bring that behavior into real life. If you practice shooting basketballs thousands of times, you get better at scoring. If you practice killing thousands of times, you get better at that as well. I give you the example of the Columbine shooters. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had been playing “first-person shooters” for more than a year before that fateful day. When the time came to “play the game” in the real world, they were ready. So as a result of actively participating in the violence, these game players develop a total disregard for societal norms, property rights, and even the general value of other lives. The player see the world as a violent, unsafe place where everyone is out to get you, society is trying to destroy the very life you live and breath. The player learns that aggressive actions against others, such as fighting and shooting, may be appropriate, even necessary in certain cases. Violent video games have an addictive nature, and for an aggressive performance, players receive constant and immediate reinforcement in the form of visual and auditory stimulation during a kill. With special effects such as exploding body parts, blood, gore, and general mayhem it provides an excellent environment for learning aggression. "One study reveals that young men who are habitually aggressive may be especially vulnerable to the aggression-enhancing effects of repeated exposure to violent games," said psychologists Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., and Karen E. Dill, Ph.D. "The other study reveals that even a brief exposure to violent video games can temporarily increase aggressive behavior in all types of participants."(cite)
So as a result of the addictive nature of violent video games I feel that excessive exposure contributes to aggressive personality traits in the player, and further playing can make an already aggressive person even more aggressive. The player becomes more aggressive, changes his outlook on life and socializing, and tends to socialize with others who demonstrate similar attitudes of aggression and finally the player’s socialization with teachers, parents, and non-aggressive peers are likely to degenerate. The more realistic the games are, the stronger the negative impact.
The series was based on a war between four main sets of plastic army men: the Green, the Tan, the Blue, and the Grey. I played and successfully completed each game, down to the last final mission, successfully beating each game, defeating the enemy. I was so taken away by this game, and for no apparent reason. There was no blood, the graphics were good for the time, it had your war game elements within the mission, and for some reason I was so consumed with it. I started with Army Men: Air Attack in 1999 on Playstation, and continued until 2001 Portal Runner. I think the unique design of the games missions draws the player in. The graphics are not the most visually stimulating, but the concept of the game itself identifies with the player. Each game comes with an overall objective, in Army Men: Sarge’s Hero’s , “Vikki has been kidnapped by General Plastro of the evil Tan army. To get her back, you will need to face countless Tan soldiers, tanks, helicopters and even robots. Stranger enemies await you as well: giant insects from another world. The Tan Army has captured portals to a strange world of giants. When you travel to these worlds, you will find yourself engaged in combat through giant kitchens, bathrooms, and an enormous sandcastle.”(Game Revolution) ), this version breaks new ground in its search for interactive environments. You take the fight into the home as your miniaturized soldiers shoot it out on the shores of the bathroom, in bedroom trenches, and on kitchen battlefields. In each game that came out you would get something different, graphic, weapons, missions, would all be different. I was always excited about the new version. It was a step in a different direction for me as far as playing video games goes. It was different from the usual blood, guts, monsters, things of that nature. I enjoyed destroying plastic army men. Just like when I was a child, expect for real guns and real action. Some how I probably fulfilled some childhood dream of actually playing with my army men. Who doesn’t want to see their toys come to life? It’s a great game that I spent many countless hours on with no regret.
Since the start of this class I have gained a new respect for gaming Its History Alright. I think that I have done my best in understanding this new outlook. Dr. Jerz us really looking into what gaming is and what its about. There a lot of critical thinking, and being a football player, critical thinking is not my strong points, haha just kidding. Dr. Jerz requires us as a class to expand our thinking outside our usual opinion while at the same time expressing our normal perspective.
Here are the links to all of my posted blogs ( includes reflections, game analysis, RRRR):
I've also interacted with the class through comments on other classmates bloggs.
There will be more comments I have just been having trouble with commenting, I thought there were more.
SO.................
Overall I feel like I have doing my best to keep up with the class assignments. This subject is very new to me, but is opening up my eyes to a different light of gaming. I have seen a new light to video gaming and where its come from and where it's going. I have given much thought to what I have covered so far in this course, and can only hope to grasp the subject more in the future.
]]>
B. Anti-Feminist "She is breaking the stereotypes for women in games and opening opportunities for women in the genre as a whole. "
After reading the presentation by a former student on the issue of Lara Croft, I was sort of taken in. I personally never looked at the game that deeply. But I found it interesting on the points that were made and can see how the game could be viewed as degrading to women, look to quote A. Theres a valid point in there, but at the same time, if Lara Croft was a overweight fully clothed character would she be more appealing? When a game is desgined, the creator wants it to appeal to consumers, and having a sexy, kick ass women does that. Wasn't Lara Croft the first story game to have a female as the main character? Or one of the first. To me lara Croft the game(s) and movie show a woman in power dominating men and looking good at the same time. Isn't that what feminist want, a women kicking a mans ass? I agree with quote B. the game did wonders for the industry. Todays world seems so modest and conservative its sad. It wasnt the first time sexiness was used to promote something, i think that it is necessary to modify certaing things to appeal to a wide range of audience.
]]>"To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers." Ebert quotes. My response to this is no yet. With the new forms of gaming, like NGJ, there are possibilities that games will be considered with some of the great poets, filmmakers, etc. Just hasn't happened yet.
]]>EL250
After reviewing and reading about what interactive fiction is, how it was created, how its played, where its gone, I have come to the conclusion that its not for me. The way that games were created is interesting and how gaming has come so far is interesting to see. But other than that my feelings towards it are 'bluhg'. I am a visual person, so seeing is very important in my game play. The text play games don't keep my interest at all. If I'm not seeing it, I don't seem to care, it just doesn't keep me wanting to know more. I think that a important element to gaming now, and probably a big reason text isn't as big as it was. With all the new effects, visual game play it would seem hard to compete, unless you are a classic gamer. Text gaming was the start of something, and has evolved into more adavanced gaming. Just like with anything, when something is first presented, and its the first of its kind, everyone is going to be amazed, but then later on another company is going to make a better version that has better graphics, better controls, better everything. That is what makes the world a interesting place. Relating that to game culture, look and the game reviewing and how that has changed. A new for of reviewing has been formed and could eventually take the place of classic reviewing. It is really hard for me to really get into this text gaming, interactive fiction because in now way does it appeal to me, especially being that there is no visual inticement at all. I have given it an honest try, but just can't get the jist of it. It is interesting to see where gameing got its roots from, but as far as playing these classic text games, it's just not working for me.
]]>