When I enrolled in this class I mainly did it because I
love manga and games. They constitute a great deal of who I am today. While I
enjoyed the graphic portion of my class very much so (I honestly wish it made
up a greater percent of the class) the gaming portion I find myself not so
drawn to. I don’t mean to say I don’t enjoy it or haven’t learned anything from
it, I just find it odd that learning about something so big in my life doesn’t
excite me more. This got me thinking quite a bit. It has gotten to the point in
which I ask abrupt questions to my friends online about certain things dealing
with gaming. Their natural response was that learning about games is ruining my
gaming experience, but that’s not it. I’m the guy who will take off from work during
E3 just to watch as many different streams as possible. I love learning about
the technical stuff (no so much the programming but more so the creative ideas,
though if you’ve ever seen a Kojima interview you know that creative and
technical are seldom ever disconnected from one another (i.e. the technical
limitations often limit the creative ideas or explorations of the creative side
push the technical side and etc…)) So I don’t believe it’s that my gaming
experience is ruined from learning.
So
this leaves me with the question of why can’t I be excited about learning about
video games in a class on gaming! I’ve come up with a few ideas as to why this
is. The main leading answer for me is that the three authors of our class seem
to be more in line of arguing that games are worth it due to the fact that people can learn from them,
therefore they are worthy of examination. While I think the points made in all
three books are worth examining, I wish there was a book in which focuses on
games as a culmination. I want to read a
book that examines games because they exist, not because there is some alternative
use for them.
To
try to illustrate my point I will use the example of Gee. Gee is a nice mostly
because I find him the least crazy and not up all the way up on his high horse.
When I got to the part using Metal Gear
Solid as an example (172-177) I was completely disheartened. If it were me writing
this portion I would write about how MGS (or MG more likely) changed the gaming
world forever. Instead Gee approached it from a standpoint that MGS challenges gamers as they are not
able to run and gun. Therefore they had to learn a different way of playing, stealthily.
While the example is more than appropriate and flows with everything in the
book to that point, I feel like his experiences are quite different than mine. Gee
oversimplifies points of MGS to a
fine tip that he is able to write with. But he leaves out the details that make
MGS an icon. He makes it an alternative
to the standard whereas I have grown up playing games a bit differently than he
has. Gee views MGS as forcing players to look for alternative
routes. He equivocates this to a new way
of playing games. In his view gamers have to change their style of play
from a standard shooter (3rd person or 1st). This is
completely true. I do not argue that point. But for me growing up I played
games differently. In games as basic as Super
Mario World and Crash Bandicoot exploration
of off route points is encouraged as it give bonuses to players who look out
for secret areas. Therefore, to me,
something like MGS is not so
different when you are already used to the mentality of looking for out of the
way areas. Where Gee should have focused on is not the stealth aspect, but how
the game breaks the fourth wall on several occasions. And yes Gee does acknowledge
this in a way when he references to Mei Ling’s advice about relaxing as this is
a game. What annoyed me is that after that references that he completely ignores
how amazing it was she just acknowledged the player directly rather than snake.
Instead he focused on how he wishes children could just relax and learn. While
it would be great if children could appreciate learning as they do a video game
story, but his blatant disregard about such a monumental act makes me so sad.
 |
| Just the sight beings so many memories to mind... |
Missing
ideas as simple as a view gone unwarranted agitates
me so. This once again comes down to me “nitpicking.” But why is that my view
not being represented in any of the books? Why is it that we can’t look at
games and say it was great for this reasons and this is something important because
it reflects such and such vales? It most likely is just me; I’ve expanded my
expectations too far. Or maybe it’s the overall structure, I believe, is what
irritates me .To exemplify this I will use Gee once again. Gee simply goes
through and explains his experiences and forms principles on them. But at no
point does he provide a counter argument. Nor does he amend a principle. He
decided to just add principles later, like the three principles after the MGS example that proves to be derivates from
the standard games. I understand why he would use a structure like this. It is
most likely easier for those who are non-gamers to understand with his current
structure in place. But what I would prefer (at least once, and there is a good
chance I’ve missed it) is an in-depth look into a derivative, like MGS. For example I would love to see if
a game like MGS helps people to learn
better than a standard game like Game
American McGee's Alice (which is an amazing game as well)? Overall I feel like maybe I’m a bit to
jaded with video games to appreciate all his principles.
Once
again I want to point out I do not mean to sound like I dislike the class. I
think Shannon is a wonderful professor that has given me insight I would not
have found anywhere else. I already stated I especially enjoyed the graphic
portion and in no other class could I play a game for homework or go to a
gaming museum for credit. As my one friend pointed out I should shut up and
just be happy I get credits to talk about video games. I think the main purpose
of this blog entry is here to point out certain inadequacies I feel exists for
either a lack of research on my part or in general. While I came into class
dreading the “Are video games Art?” question I now somewhat long to discuss it
in an academia setting. Anyways, if anyone has made it this far I would love to
hear of anyone else’s expectations either being missed or accomplished from the
class. Or any surprises (negative or positive) you have found over the course
of the class.
I am actually enjoying the class for the inadequacies that you feel. I come from no gaming background, and it has been difficult for me to really immerse myself in this culture. Mainly, I don't know where to even begin. So, I really appreciate that the class looks at video games from an outside approach to video games. I feel as though I am learning a lot about how people learn, which should help in my future classroom.
ReplyDeleteBut it would be interesting to hear a little about video games for video games' sakes. (Although I feel that I would have little to add to that conversation, even with my limited gaming experience.)
I can definitely see how many people would have trouble getting into certain games. To this day I still don't see the reason in playing sports games. I'm like you, I can play it, but not have fun with it.
DeleteMaybe you need a genre that you can connect to better. You would be surprised as to just how the slightest differences affect a game.
I also see how a class like this could introduce a completely different audience to games in a way that aren't biased by other standards that society holds. I think my whole thing was I was expecting more of a breakdown of games rather than what they can do. I have just become so used to what the other arts classes at Ship are like. Like the Film classes on Campus really break down movies in general. There is a section in the class that argues we can learn from films. But the majority of time it was about what different aspects of film bring to the whole(i.e. lighting, audio, acting, story, etc...) When we did graphic novels that portion of the class was developed in a way that we got the best of both. But because Games are so new I think there has really been little reason up until late to study them in such a manner.
If you are ever bored you should check out websites like gamespot.com, ign.com, or giantbomb.com. They are some of the better known websites for video games and you'd be amazed at just how much people, both forums and the professionals, really love the "virtual" worlds.
Also since your going into education you should check out stuff like how kids with autism can relate to games. I've never really cared about games in matters that relate in such a way, but it is astonishing to me that these kids could connect with these characters and yet not with their own families. To some that may be a bad thing, but to me, if at least for one second a kid who can't really get out of his own head can, through the use of a video game, I think there is potential there for both the kids and games as well as so much more.
P.S. Sorry about such a long response but this is a topic I don't get to talk about much and is nice when I can ^^ (feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss more)
By no means do I consider myself an avid gamer, but I do enjoy them every once in a while - maybe too much. However, on part with what you are talking about with MGS being mentioned in Gee's book for its style of having the gamer approach alternative methods for completing a task, I, too, thought he was being a little reductive with MGS and just citing a particular element of its gameplay to fit his argument. I felt that his reductive analysis of the game left out other critical information, like you mentioned, had a big impact on the gaming culture. Furthermore, I can understand why these authors write from the perspective they do and in turn makes it relevant to being an education course. And I think this blog of yours should be taken as an omen to write a book on games for games' sake!
ReplyDeleteIn some ways he picked and chose, and in the same way I did too. I had to make my point and MGS was just the last srtaw. But he has done some justice to games like Portal and Deus Ex. And I like what hes done but at the same time I would just like to see a book on how MGS or the ori Half-life or even the newer Mario's have changed the gaming world. But thank you for the support, though I'll be gone from ship in a year (I hope), maybe in the coming years there will be enough research on games that a class I was talking about here will exist.
DeleteWhile I can understand what you are arguing in your post, I kind of disagree to a point. I think that what we've covered in the gaming portion of the class has been beneficial for both experienced and inexperienced gamers. Like you, I've been around the block in the gaming world and I found some of what Gee had to say a stretch. But I believe that, on the whole, the authors did a good job articulating how video games are a contemporary model for effective learning. Furthermore, since this class is a theories and approaches class, that particular focus on the games is more than appropriate. While I would agree that learning about video games for the sake of video games would be interesting and fun, I think that this class is about more than that...more than just playing video games for class credit. In fact, I am rather enjoying learning how video games provide us with effective learning methods whether we realize it or not ^_^
ReplyDeleteWhen I was writing this I didn't want to sell Gee short but I wanted to make my argument, as I've said on Denny's post, some games he incorporates well. But for several he stretches too far for my tastes. and yes he does make a solid argument about learning. Though I think some of the examples of his principles could be appropriated better to the current themes in popular games like infamous, skyrim, Mass Effect, or any games in which you more along the lines build your story through choices or morality. and your final point I don't much have an argument. I know this is indeed a theories and approach class and my idea of theories of approach (i.e the physiological effects of 1st person vs 3rd person. How Lighting/sound/music/story/image come together to create a true interdisciplinary work of art. And mostly the effects of narrative. they could be the theories and the approach is how different games approached them.) don't sit well with a college system. Your definition of learning approach to games fits much better than mine. I thing mine would prob be more CS than ENG class if it ever came to fruition. But yes, it has been an enjoyable class. I think Gee and crazy lady have left a bad taste in my mouth but Castronova is actually more interesting as he goes on even if it deals more with mmo's than single player games. Overall classes like Shannon's can pave the way to classes like the one I had in mind or succeed and truly integrate how we learn like that classroom we examined in class. It’s fun to be a part of it. And once again like my friends say, shut up, you’re playing games for college credit, don't complain.
Delete