Posts Tagged: culture

I like to think of myself as a “gamer.” I own all three major home consoles and usually play through all the major well-reviewed releases, Red Dead Redemption, Super Mario Galaxy 2, you name it. But then I look at the most popular games around right now. I’ve never desired to play any Call of Duty game, nor do I play very much Madden. I especially have no interest in dancing for Kinect. When looking at the role games play in our culture, these are types of games that I observe breaking the boundaries from stereotypical gamers like myself, and reaching people who have never picked up a controller. Even with online games, whether they are Farmville or World of Warcraft, they just don’t appeal to me.

When trying to look at this paradox, as a gamer who doesn’t like or play the most popular games, I arrived at two reasons: I love narratives, but dislike social gaming. Almost all of the above games include some interaction with other players, where I guess I would rather just play through a game on my own. I wasn’t aware introversion applied to video game usage, but apparently it does. Further, I like to play through narratives on my own, which are almost exclusively single-player based. Ironically, I am most attracted to the cinematic and literary elements in games, not their ludological elements. In juxtaposition with what distinguishes games from other media, I play games that are similar to other media.

As to avoid the egotism that goes with talking about oneself for an entire blog post, what does this personal case study mean about games in our society? Well for one, I think it shows how diverse the audiences are for any type of game. Whereas many people may like specific genres of film, television, or books, it seems that many people view games as an entire genre, which is liked by a specific group of people. There’s no other medium that I can think of where the medium is thought of as more of a niche market rather than a form of entertainment that everyone can enjoy a part of. In contrast with this mindset, I think recent surge in diversity in not just game content, but game interface, displays the growing appeal of games to various types of people. The idea that someone like me would like some games but not many others shows how games, like traditional media, are developing specific genres.

Additionally, I think these narrative elements of games make them comparable to other media. In the early days, games were focused on challenge and skill, but as the industry has grown, the genre of narrative-based games have developed as well. By focusing on well-developed characters and plot, in a single-player experience, games can offer stories in the vein of a miniseries or television show, where the audience views the story episodically. Like other media, not all games are about stories, but many of them are. For every Heavy Rain there is a Wii Fit. For every Boardwalk Empire there is a Dancing with the Stars. Different strokes for different folks. Even though I may not care to play a lot of games, I’m happy they’re bringing new audiences to this growing medium. As the industry expands further, I don’t expect everyone to play games for same reason, I just hope we can all find satisfaction in them, rather than passively dismissing them as a waste of time. Games aren’t just for gamers, they’re for everyone.

Old school games from the 1980’s had an innocence. Dig Dug. Centipede. Joust. The Mario Games. They all had a simplicity to them that seems novel and maybe even boring compared to today’s games. Current video game culture still retains a place for ‘cutesy’ games, but as video games become more mainstream, the best selling games seem to be more violent, more over the top and more aggressive.

1.) Does this change indicate a change in popular culture that is reflected in video games? If video games are more violent, does that mean Americans feel more violent?

2.) Does this change reflect the increased developing capacity brought on by cheaper and cheaper computing power? Were these violent tendencies always there and just remained unexpressed in video games because we did not have the capacity to realistically render it?

3.) Is there a link between economic well being and the kind of video games we enjoy? The 80’s were a time of recession and uncertainty (relative to the 90’s) In those times, games were more innocent and ‘family oriented.’ The 90’s saw economic boom times – our games became more violent and aggressive and stayed that way through the early part of the 21st century. Now, however, as times again become rough, there seems to be a return to family oriented, ‘fun’ games. Do we crave ‘fun’ games more during hard times? Is their a psychological need these games fulfill that are linked to our feeling of existential well being?

Week 6: Sociocultural Contexts of Interactive Media

Remix
– Lawrence Lessig

1. Lessig outlines two cultures – the read-only culture (RO) model of the past and the read/write culture (RW) of the present digital age.  He uses the concept of blogs to explain how consumers redefined their relationship to the content industry through comments and tagging and that we now posses the digital tools to expand upon production.  These comment features have made their way to media news sites and jumped to a new level in dialogue.  If the internet is a source of free flowing information, should media outlets be responsible for comments left by readers on their site?  Or should reader content be monitored, thus going against the free flow?

2.  Today, digital culture permeates our lives to such an extent that it is hard to come up with anything we would deem as “new”.  The current generation will quote content from various sources to create something “new”.  The combination of content may be different, but can this remix of pre-existing content really fall under the category of new?

3. Lessig describes our sharing economy as not being regulated by a metric of price but by a set of social relations.  While Wikipedia has proven that this type of economy can be successful (people are in it because they want to be), should this mindset be applied to all internet content as a whole?  In what realms does a sharing economy not work well for all parties involved?

4.  The book offers 5 steps toward more efficient copyright law (deregulating, clear title, simplify, decriminalizing the copy, and decriminalizing file sharing).  Although these may all be thoughtful suggestions, I believe most people see copyright violation as trivial and there will always be a way to find pirated material unless more strict punishments are put in place.  Should the government simply revamp copyright laws or is stricter enforcement the real problem?

Applied Mass Communication Theory: Chapter 9
– Rosenberry and Vicker

1. The First Amendment sounds absolute in its wording (Congress shall make no law).  Did the founding fathers really want us to take this amendment as literal as it sounds?  If they were observing us today would they be satisfied with the various tiers and levels of protection we have placed on different types of expression?

2.  Privacy is a hot topic in today’s digital world, especially when it comes to social networking and e-commerce.  However, should the government put laws in place that make up for people’s personal choice of providing identifying information on a medium that was built on the idea of free flowing information?  We provide this information at our own risk and to satisfy needs to associate with the internet.  Is it our own fault that the world can read so much about us?

3.  As media and technologies have advanced over the centuries, society has changed with it.  Has law kept up with all the changes and adapted adequately?

In the second chapter of Jaron Lanier’s book, “You Are Not a Gadget,” the author brings up the concepts of Singularity and Rapture. Each term is a variation on the human apocalypse, as brought on by either robots or God. While Lanier discusses the topic in length, I want to probe further. Given theme of humans becoming obsolete, where do we stand as a society today?

“All of reality, including humans, is one big information system,” as Lanier describes the first tenet of a new technological culture. This concept, “that we’re all connected,” is far from merely a technological one. It is a philosophical one that stretches back as far time goes. Whether its Pocohantas singing with the colors of the wind, or Neytiri saying she sees you, many cultural philosophies theorize that all of life is a giant network. The difference today is that this network is scientifically measurable. Not only are there social networks like Facebook, we can also track dollar bills around the world or study trends in demographic data. Seemingly because of technology, our life is more systematic and connected  than ever.

By discussing this concept of a networked life, we must ask how this influences the obsolescence of humanity. Well I can see it being argued two ways: 1) the network empowers the individual for being part of a larger entity 2) the network renders the individual human insignificant within the grander system. Which argument you side depends on your perspective. Do we understand humanity through gestalt or detail? Do we consider a human being as a single person or a collection of atoms? My tendency is to look at these things as part of the whole. Therefore, each member of the network of life is empowered through the connections that it offers. Because of technology, we can find new friends and support groups, create and access more information, and form a stronger interdependence on our fellow man. While we can all do this in the pre-digital age, the methods to do so have never been as fast, effective, or efficient, as they are today.

Lanier infers that there is “a new kind of manifest destiny… making the digital system we call reality function at ever-higher “levels of description.” The issue is how and when computers surpass the human mind at these higher levels. It seems inevitable. What happens when computers can program other computers to be more efficient than themselves? What happens as this cycle continues to the point humans no longer matter? That would be the aforementioned singularity. While it seems obvious that we should simply not design technology like this in the first place, the human desire for artificial intelligence will only grow as we grow lazier and rely heavier on convenience. To ensure our own preservation, what do we do?

Consider Singularity’s counterpart, Rapture: the purported time when the evil are condemned to hell and the righteous are sent to heaven. Until then, we are recommended to follow a code of ethics towards our fellow man and to God. When developing increasingly sophisticated technology, we must also follow a code of ethics and not forget who the technology is being used for. If we create not for ourselves, but for humanity, than we can help ensure our own success. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. We are stronger as a society than as a group of individuals. Maybe if we all work together, we can stop the robot uprising and Arnold Schwarzenegger will never try to come back in time and kill us. Otherwise, we had better hope Will Smith is still around.

1. In the first chapter, the author discusses the generational critiques of the Internet, with the first being that if the Internet gives everyone a voice or a chance to speak, then no one is listening. The second generational critique said the Internet is not as decentralized as we once thought (i.e., very few sites capture a large amount of attention and far more websites go unnoticed). Based on these observations and the continuing evolution of the World Wide Web, what could be some third generation critiques when it comes to networked publics and the democracy of sharing information?

2. In the second chapter, the author explains that many outlets do not rely on copyright royalties to attain their wealth, but rather see a greater benefit in sharing the information at a low (or zero) cost to users in order to have information circulated, thus making profit that way. With companies like the New York Times debating charging users for access to their websites, how would this affect the online information community and, perhaps, the focus on using copyrights for profits?

3. How are community-based websites, such as Wikipedia and Second Life, shaping our cultural understanding of the Internet? What are the social-norms and values (or even self-governing rules of conduct) of participating in these forums and how have they developed?

1. The whole first section of the Wealth of Networks is essentially an argument for the application of social production to our current institutions. So, if this trend continues to grow what impact could we see economically? As great as it would be for people to work together for nothing, our economy still requires the exchange of currency to function. Is this potentially a step towards a true socialistic or communistic society? (I mean a real communist society not a dictatorship proclaiming the values of communism).

2. What other arenas could social production be applied and will our cultural values allow the supplication of incentive production to social production?

3. What if social production was incorporated into the developing world? Right now, the developing world is trying to keep up with the developed world by becoming like us. This has caused various amounts of strife. So, what if they incorporated a social production method into their economic system? It might blend better with their individual cultures. For example, China is a very community based culture so I could see social production working well in that part of the world.

Week 3: Perspectives on Theory
Applied Mass Communication Theory: A Guide for Media Practitioners
Chapters 5-8
_____

1. The book states, “the thing that makes human beings unique is our ability to engage in symbolic communication.”  What is symbolic communication and what are some early examples from human history?  Do we still use some of these ancient techniques?

2. When did mass communication begin?  Does the term “mass communication” only apply to the decades in which modern technologies have aided in human communication?

3.  Chapter 5 lists the main characteristics of the mass communication process as: scale, direction, impersonality/anonymity, simultaneity, transience, and audience.  How does new media blur the lines in regards to these six traditions?

4. What is the main difference between early theories of mass communication and today’s more modern approaches?  Why did prominent figures of ancient times view messages in this way?

5. Chapter 6 lists the factors that account for perceptual processes of mass media as: biological differences, cultural differences, different social environments, different education levels, and different religious backgrounds.  How can this list be condensed into one overall individual influence factor?

6.  In modern times do people learn more from direct contact with each other or from mass media?  Which is more influential?

7.  Who is responsible for public agenda setting and who is responsible for setting the agenda of the press?  Describe some factors that lead to agenda setting.

8.  What is the main difference between positivist and interpretive theories.  Do you agree more with the positivist philosophy or the interpretive theorists?

9. Chapter 8 states, “Critical, cultural, and interpretive traditions have been described as a single entity, and there are some common goals regarding ‘communication in the exercise of social power’.”  Discuss critical theory and cultural studies and which level of analysis you believe carries the biggest punch in terms of research.