Video Games Part 2

I am a gamer. Not just a casual gamer, but a hard core gamer. I do not just play video games, though. I also follow the trends and news related to video games. I feel that the questions I posted for this week reflect and were inspired by the knowledge I have gained over the years.

For example, in my first question I asked if video games as a forum for media is protected by free speech. I asked this question because of a case currently being deliberated by the Supreme Court. Essentially, law makers in California are trying to pass a law that would make it a criminal act to sell violent video games to minors. The defender against this law is the Entertainment Software Association who claims that this law would be illegal under the free speech amendment. At this point, both sides have given their testimonies and the results will be decided upon between now and the Court’s recess in June.

I bring up this case because it highlights a feature of video games which separates them from other forms of media; interactivity. Part of the overarching concern over violent video games is the player is an active participant in the actions the character takes in the game. The short version is: if you do it in a game, you might do it in real life. There is research that argues both sides of this argument, but this is not the reason I bring up the interactive feature of  video games. I am highlighting this feature because of the possibilities that stem from it.

The possibilities of interactivity are the focus for my other questions this week. For example, presume that video games followed the principle of monkey see monkey do. By that logic if you make a video game that teaches kids to practice good oral hygine then those who play said game would also practice good oral hygine.  That is not how things are so let’s twist the idea another way with another example. Centuries ago, certain professions required one to obtain an apprenticeship to learn the trade such as carpentering, masonry, etc. This apprenticeship required one to practice and train under their mentor before they could “graduate”. In other words, the apprentice had to interact and practice in order to learn his trade instead of being considered a master by reading a few books. A more modern example, would be our production classes. In these classes, we have the opportunity to take the knowledge we gain in our theory class and apply it. We get to interact not just with the tools, but with the knowledge as well.

What I am trying to get at is the model of interactivity presented by video games has the potential to be exercised across the board. For the past decades, our culture has been one of passive consumption. Video games and their popularity, however, reflect our desire as a culture to become active producers and active participants in the world. And, no, I do not mean the way depicted by schell where you get points for everything. I mean a world where people not just have a perception of power, but truly have the capability to interact with various aspects of their lives.

Last week we discussed Obama’s presidential campaign and the website mybarackobama.com. Part of what drew people to the site was the ability to have a say. People were empowered. Whether that is true or not still today is up for debate, but at the very least a domino effect was started. Just look at the rise and exponential growth of the Tea Party, if that does not reflect people’s desire to be an active participant I don’t know what does.

Ultimately, the incorporation of interactivity holds a number of possibilities for the future.

Tags: interactivity, video games