Note: Sorry to be posting this right before class but my internet has been down since late Monday night.
Reading #1
"Rather, what is most fascinating is that the gameplay may modify the player's behavior in interpersonal relationships. Gameplay,particularly with violent and frustrating games, seems to elicit increased perception of threat, increased physiological arousal in game threat situations ( which may translate to other perceived threat siutations), and less use of traditional verbal problem solving strategies and appropriately assertive person to person conflict resolution."
The question I would ask is what exactly were the reactions of of the people that played violent games? They say that players responded with game-play like
responses to problems that work in the surreal world of games but not in the real world. What kind of reactions did these people have?
Response #2
This writer goes on to say after that quote that in general people that play violent games view people that appose them as the same as the villian from a game and can only respond by using things they learned in the game e.g. violence. As with all articles about violence and gaming I always question if they look into the lives of these people that play violent games then go out and do violent things. Critics of games always seem to leave the bit out about how a kid's stepdad slapped him around a lot or how a person might have been beaten up in school before striking back. These types of people are drawn to violent games because it allows them to be the one dishing out the punishment instead of taking it. They are in control and not the victim while in the game world. The reason many people turn to violence is not just because they play violent games, but violence is the only way they know how to solve a problem. If they get beat up everyday they might think the only way to deal with that is do the exact same thing to the person beating them up, and if they can't use thier fists they turn to guns. While I won't totally discredit the author's line of thinking, I do think that all people that decide to sit down and write about games and violence should spend some time with the people that play them and see what thier life is like. I mean personally I play almost nothing but Nintedno made "Kiddy" games, but I was also raised in a way where violence wasn't the answer to a problem and never really picked on at school, so based on my upbringing and gameplay habits, I think there is a deeper conncection all these armchair critics aren't making.
Reading 2
Response #1
“But the crucial relationship in many games-both contemporary standards like the Quake series and its ancestors from the 1960s and 1970s such as Spacewar, Space Invaders, and Battlezone-is not between avatar or environment or even between protagonist and antagonist, but between the human player and the image of him or herself encountered onscreen.”
The question I have is why would the conflict be between the player and their on-screen counterpart? The reason most of us pick up a game is because we like the look or style of the main character, not because we hate ourselves so much that we need to play as a person we're not. Most emotional attachment to characters comes much later in a game, after you learn more of the story behind the character. Take for example the Metal Gear games. I picked it up because the main character Solid Snake, is a total badass and has a great style to him. I didn't really care about him at all at the start of the game though, but after learning of his past and learning to care about him did I feel any type of connection with him. I also don't understand how the golden-age games figure into his statement. I mean I can see feeling attached to a human or even animal or robot character that talks and has visable emotions, but in a game where your a triangle or a diffrent type of triangle I don't see how any connection can be made on the terms the author suggests.
Response #2
Overall I think this author makes some interesting connections between player and avatar, some I like and some I don't. While I personally can identify with the character I'm playing, I have never invested myself so much in a character that I became the character, but maybe I don't have enough imagination left. I do think that he makes an interesting point to say that people view games to fix what they see has "wrong" with themselves and that your in control of everything in the game world. Look, most "hardcore" gamers may not be the most socially adept people, or even the best looking, and that is why a number of them retreat into games. I mean personally I was an only child so I spent a great deal of time entertaining myself playing games, so I can see why a large number of people, espcially with the rise of the MMO genre that people are retreating from the harsh world they live in to a world that they think they are "perfect" and have control.
Reading #1
"Rather, what is most fascinating is that the gameplay may modify the player's behavior in interpersonal relationships. Gameplay,particularly with violent and frustrating games, seems to elicit increased perception of threat, increased physiological arousal in game threat situations ( which may translate to other perceived threat siutations), and less use of traditional verbal problem solving strategies and appropriately assertive person to person conflict resolution."
The question I would ask is what exactly were the reactions of of the people that played violent games? They say that players responded with game-play like
responses to problems that work in the surreal world of games but not in the real world. What kind of reactions did these people have?
Response #2
This writer goes on to say after that quote that in general people that play violent games view people that appose them as the same as the villian from a game and can only respond by using things they learned in the game e.g. violence. As with all articles about violence and gaming I always question if they look into the lives of these people that play violent games then go out and do violent things. Critics of games always seem to leave the bit out about how a kid's stepdad slapped him around a lot or how a person might have been beaten up in school before striking back. These types of people are drawn to violent games because it allows them to be the one dishing out the punishment instead of taking it. They are in control and not the victim while in the game world. The reason many people turn to violence is not just because they play violent games, but violence is the only way they know how to solve a problem. If they get beat up everyday they might think the only way to deal with that is do the exact same thing to the person beating them up, and if they can't use thier fists they turn to guns. While I won't totally discredit the author's line of thinking, I do think that all people that decide to sit down and write about games and violence should spend some time with the people that play them and see what thier life is like. I mean personally I play almost nothing but Nintedno made "Kiddy" games, but I was also raised in a way where violence wasn't the answer to a problem and never really picked on at school, so based on my upbringing and gameplay habits, I think there is a deeper conncection all these armchair critics aren't making.
Reading 2
Response #1
“But the crucial relationship in many games-both contemporary standards like the Quake series and its ancestors from the 1960s and 1970s such as Spacewar, Space Invaders, and Battlezone-is not between avatar or environment or even between protagonist and antagonist, but between the human player and the image of him or herself encountered onscreen.”
The question I have is why would the conflict be between the player and their on-screen counterpart? The reason most of us pick up a game is because we like the look or style of the main character, not because we hate ourselves so much that we need to play as a person we're not. Most emotional attachment to characters comes much later in a game, after you learn more of the story behind the character. Take for example the Metal Gear games. I picked it up because the main character Solid Snake, is a total badass and has a great style to him. I didn't really care about him at all at the start of the game though, but after learning of his past and learning to care about him did I feel any type of connection with him. I also don't understand how the golden-age games figure into his statement. I mean I can see feeling attached to a human or even animal or robot character that talks and has visable emotions, but in a game where your a triangle or a diffrent type of triangle I don't see how any connection can be made on the terms the author suggests.
Response #2
Overall I think this author makes some interesting connections between player and avatar, some I like and some I don't. While I personally can identify with the character I'm playing, I have never invested myself so much in a character that I became the character, but maybe I don't have enough imagination left. I do think that he makes an interesting point to say that people view games to fix what they see has "wrong" with themselves and that your in control of everything in the game world. Look, most "hardcore" gamers may not be the most socially adept people, or even the best looking, and that is why a number of them retreat into games. I mean personally I was an only child so I spent a great deal of time entertaining myself playing games, so I can see why a large number of people, espcially with the rise of the MMO genre that people are retreating from the harsh world they live in to a world that they think they are "perfect" and have control.
posted by The Poison Ninja at 1:57 PM
2 Comments:
Great response! I like the point you make about violent games--that the root causes of the person's actions are the common denomenator in both their enjoyment of violent games AND in their tendency toward violent behavior; games are an index, not a causal factor.
ps> If you put a title on your post, it's easier to keep track of later.
Post a Comment
<< Home