unit 08 — art + games + tech (discussion)

According to Jane McGonigal’s presentation on why gaming can create a better world she suggests that in games individuals are “the most likely to stick to a problem as long as it takes – to get up after failure and try again,” (McGonigal, TED2010). She then contrasts that with real life stating, “In real life when we face failure, when we confront obstacles, we often don’t feel that way; we feel overcome; we feel overwhelmed; we feel anxious, maybe depressed, frustrated or cynical – we never experience those feelings when we’re playing games. They just don’t exist in games,” (McGonigal, TED2010). She made a point to identify character level-specific quests and problems as one of the motivating factors – the knowledge that your character won’t be overwhelmed whatever opposition you encounter, despite having to work hard to achieve your goals, because the obstacles are scaled to your relative in-game level.

Do you also think the fact that games have pre-established storylines, ultimate outcomes, and predetermined solutions or sets of solutions contributes to this sense of optimism? In real life this doesn’t exist: there are problems, and we hope to eventually discover solutions, but they aren’t predetermined — there are no guarantees. The inherent knowledge that there is a solution does not exist.

My other question relates back to our study of horror. Do you think the comfortable distance – the fact that the game world is knowably fake, like the act of viewing a horror movie (whatever fear exists is “safe” and can be overcome by the knowledge that you are watching a screen, are safe, and what is about to happen isn’t real) promotes this optimism and hopeful attitude? A gamer knows if they attempt a task and fail (maybe die), they have ample opportunity to make another attempt – generally at no real cost to themselves, their character or gameplay. This is maybe especially true if you know when to save your game – valuable progress isn’t even forfeited.

I also thought McGonigal’s anecdote about the invention of the first dice game had an interesting tie-in to this week’s reading. It was said that Herodotus, an ancient Greek historian, cited the king of Lydia as being the first inventor of games as a means of enduring a drought season: one day his subjects would eat, the next they would play dice as in order to distract them from the limited number foodstuff resources (McGonigal, TED2010).

In our reading Jones suggests that “old cultural patterns do not die. They may fade or become more evident; that is, they may be deemphasized or emphasized. Only as part of the general ‘non-expert’ culture can such patterns contribute significantly to maintenance and/or change,” (Jones, p21). Do you think McGonigal’s claims about the origin of gaming validate this theory? And if so, what is the individual non-expert’s role in contributing towards the evolution of gaming’s practical, real-world value or application?

Jones, B. J. (1990). Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins. LEONARDO: Digital Image – Digital Cinema Supplemental Issue, pp. 21-30.

McGonigal, Jane. Recorded at TED2010, February 2010 in Long Beach, CA. Duration: 20:04

3 comments

  1. brianaj@uoregon.edu

    I think you have come up with some really interesting questions that I feel a little future research could answer for you. I think you have made a great point in that people are more optimistic in games and why exactly is that? You said it could have been because they are watching it happen like in a scary movie and know it’s not real so if they fail, it’s okay, or because there are a fixed set of solutions. Do you think though that this false sense of optimism is causing people to do more risk taking in their own lives? Do you think that this next generation has become more violent because of playing violent video games? There has been a lot of evidence that this is in fact becoming a problem. An online Time article by Alice Park states that “hours of exposure to violent media like video games can make kids react in more hostile ways compared to ones who don’t spend lots of time controller-in-hand.” Do you think that video games limit or enhance children’s creativity? I could argue that children are less creative because they don’t have to think up their own imaginary world, they have it already made for them in their own video games.

  2. Tubbs

    You might think video games might not be able to help but if most kids can learn violence from a video game, don’t you think they can learn the opposite as well? I like to look at video games as those learning books your parents bought for you as kids. Those books went from learning your ABC’s, how to read, color, learn to spell, and as well as to write. I am pretty sure those kids with parents who bout them those books, learned how to do all those things. You say video games have predetermined outcomes and to me these learning books do too. If you can get people to learn from those books don’t you think you can do the same in a video game?

  3. ycui@uoregon.edu

    You pose a number of god questions in your post. The first thing that jumped out to me was the fact that you questioned whether or not there is a guarantee in video games that does not exist in the world. I think that this is a sense of a guarantee and not necessarily a guarantee. I think that given enough time, and possibly some help, most problems in video games can be solved. But there are still some that are not necessarily easily solvable. I think this can be reflected in life as well. Most problems have a solution and if you have the mindset it can be done then you can get it done.

Post a comment

You may use the following HTML:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>